^
THE
ADVANTAGE and NECESSITY
OF THE
CHRISTIAN REVELATION,
SHEWN FROM THE
STATE OF RELIGION
I N T H E
ANTIENT HEATHEN WORLD:
ESPECIALLY WITH RESPECT TO
THE KNOWLEDGE AND WORSHIP OF THE
ONE TRUE GOD :
A RULE OF MORAL DUTY:
AND
A STATE OF FUTURE REWARDS and PUNISHMENTS.
TO WHICH IS PREFIXED,
A PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE on NATURAL and REVEALED RELIGION.
IN TWO VOLUMES.
By JOHN LELAND, D. D.
Author of the View of the Deistical Writers, &c.
VOL. IL
LONDON:
Printed by W. Richardson and S. Clark;
AndSolJ by R. and J. Dodslev in Pail-mall, and T. Longman in Pater-nofter-Row.
M Dec LXIV.
[ "i ]
PREFACE
TO THE
SECOND VOLUME.
ALTHOUGH in the general preface prefixed to the former
volume, I have given an account of the nature and defign
of this work, yet I think it not amifs to fay fomething farther in
the beginning of this volume, for removing or obviating fome
prejudices, which might be conceived againft the plan I have
formed, and the manner in which it is executed.
Some learned perfons feem not willing to admit, that the main
principles of religion and morality were originally communicated
by Divine Revelation to the firfl: parents of mankind, and from
them conveyed by tradition to their pofterity. They think it more
probable, that they were led by their own natural fenfe and reafon
to the knowledge of thofe principles. I readily own, that thofe
principles, when once difcovered, will be found upon examina-
tion to be perfedlly agreeable to the beft reafon of mankind j but I
think enough is offered in this treatile to fliew, that in fadt the firfl
notices of thefe things were communicated to the firfl anceflors of
a 2 the
IV
PREFACE.
the human race by a revelation from God, And In this 1 liave the
fatisfaction of agreeing witli many eminent divines, and with thofe
two great mafters of reafon, and who are juftly reckoned among
our beft; writers on the law of nature, Grotius and Puffendorf.
The fuppofing the knowledge of the main principles of religion
to have been originally owing to a Divine Revelation, does not at
all deny that thofe principles are really founded in the nature of
things, and confirmed by the dictates of pure and unprejudiced
rcafun. Thefe things are pcrfcftly confiflent ; and when taken
together, give one a more extenfive view of the wifdom and
goodnefs of God in his difpenfations towards mankind, and the
various ways that have been taken for leading men into the know-
ledge of religion and morals. That this is moft agreeable to tlie
Mofaic accounts, is fufficiently fhewn both in the former volume
and in this. And that there were very antient traditions among
the Heathen nations, concerning fome of the main principles of
religion, though in procefs of time greatly depraved and cor-
rupted, appears from the accounts that are given us by the Hea-
then writers themfelves.
But there is another objedion which I have met witii, and
which deferves to be more particularly confidercd. It is this.
That the making fuch a reprefcntation, as I have done, of the
ftatc of the Pagan world, may poflibly be turned to the difad-
vantage of natural religion itfelf, and may tend to the weakening
thofe principles which lie at the foundation of all religion and
morality.
If
PREFACE. V
If by natural religion be meant religion as it is founded in na-
ture, and which may be proved to be agreeable to the beft and
founded principles of human reafon, there is nothing in this work
that can bring any real prejudice to it. And though I am far
from thinking that the Gofpel is merely a republication of the law
of nature, yet this may be fafely affirmed, and is what I have en-
deavoured in the courfe of this work to fhew, that it is one excel-
lent defign of the Chriftian Revelation to confirm and eftablifli it,
to place it in the propereft light, and to clear it from that amazing
load of rubbifli which had been heaped upon it in a long fucccffiun
of ages. No-where is natural religion, taken in the fenfe I have
mentioned, fo well underftood, fo clearly explained, and fo
ftrongly afferted, as where the Chriftian Religion is duly enter-
tained and profcfled.
But if by natural religion be underftood religion as it flands
merely on the foot of the powers of unaffifted reafon, entirely
independent on Divine Revelation, and as it was actually taught
and profefled by thofe who made the higheft pretences to reafon
and religion in the Pagan world, I confefs it has been one prin-
cipal part of my defign in this work to fhew its weaknelTes and
defedls. And as a high admiration of the antient philofophers,
efpecially thofe who flouriflied in the celebrated nations of Greece
and Rome, has infpired many with a contempt of the Holy Scrip-
tures, and caufed them to entertain mean and undervaluing
thoughts of the glorious Gofpel of Chrift, I cannot but think
it a real fervice to religion, to fliew how unfit thofe boafled
licrhts
vl PREFACE.
lights of the Pagan world were to be the guides of mankind ; and
that they fell valHy fliort of the firft teachers and publifhers of
Chriftianity, mean and illiterate as fome have efteemed them.
The Scriptures make the mofl: flriking reprefentatlons of the
darknefs and corruptions of the Heathen world. And the antient
apologlfts for Chriftianity give the fame account of the ftate of
the Pagan nati ins. They fet themfelves to expofe their grofs
idolatry and polytheifm, the impurities and abominations of
their religion and worflilp, their great corruption and diflblutenefs
of morals, and the uncertainties and contradidlions of their beft
writers, and thence argue the great need there was of the ufeful-
nefs and ncceflity of the Chriftian Revelation, and the advantage
it was of to mankind. And whoever would have a juft and full
view of the ineftimable benefits and privileges we are made par-
takers of by the Gofpel, ought by no means to lofe fight of this.
It is not the intention of any thing that is faid in this book to
degrade and vilify human reafon, as if it were of no ufe in reli-
gion, and only fit to lead men aftray. I am fully perfuaded that
reafon, duly exercifed and improved, is very friendly to religion
and morals : and that the main principles of the Chriftian religion,
if fet before men in a proper light, w,ill approve themfelves to
right reafon, when freed from vicious and finful prejudices. It is
by reafon that we are enabled to deted falfc revelations, and to
difcern the proofs and evidences of the true, and the glorious cha-
radlers of wifdom and goodnefs, of purity ami truth, which (liine
in
PREFACE. vii
in it. But I confefs I am far from conceiving fo high an opinion
of reafon, if left merely to itfclf in the prefent ftate of mankind,
as fome have entertained of it. I am fully convinced by argu-
ments drawn from undeniable fail and experience, that reafon,
when puffed up with a prefumptuous conceit of its own ability
and flrength, and neglefting or defpifing proper afllftances, or
when boldly intruding into things too high for it, or led afide by
corrupt cuftom and mere human authority, by vicious prejudices
and paffions and carnal interefls, is often apt to pafs very wrong
judgments on things, efpecially in divine matters. Nor do I ap-
prehend, that it is any difparagement to reafon, to lay open the
faults and errors of thofe who have made the greateft pretenfions
to it, or that it follows from this, that reafon is a vain thing, and
has no certain foundations to rely upon. Thus, e. g. if fome that
have profefTed to govern themfelves by reafon, have entertained
very wrong notions of God, of his.perfe(5lions, attributes, and pro-
vidence, it by no means follows, that the proofs of the divine na-
ture and perfedtions, or of God's governing providence, are not
built upon fure and folid grounds, or' that reafon is not able to
difcern the force of thofe proofs, when clearly fet before it. In
like manner with regard to morals, it would be wrong to con-
■clude that there is no certainty in any moral principles, becaufe
fome perfons of great name have paflcd very falfe judgments in
matters which appear to be of great importance in morality : or
.that there is nothing bafe or deformed in vicious aftions or af-
fections, bccaufc in fome nations and ages, and in the opinion of
perfons pretending to fuperior wifdom, they have been regarded
as
viil PREFACE.
as matters of indifFerency, and as either no faults at all, or very
flight ones.
In the courfe of this work, efpccially in that part of it which
relates to the flate of morality in the Heathen world, I have been
under a necefllty of taking notice of feveral things which can
fcarcc hi mentioned without being offenfive to virtuous minds,
though frequently pradifed among thofe that have paffed for the
moft learned and polite of the Heathen nations, and even by many
of the philofophers themfelvcs. The fubjedl was fo difagreeable
to me, that I intended more than once to have paffed it over al-
together, or to have mentioned it very llightly, and only in a ge-
neral way. But what determined me to infift upon a full proof
was, that otherwife the charge might have been looked upon to
be groundlefs and calumnious. And not only have fome real
friends to Chriflianity attempted to clear them from it, but others
of a different charadter have taken occafion to cenfure the apoftle
Paul, as having made an unjuft and odious reprefentation of the
flate of the Gentile world, beyond what can be juftiiied by truth
and fadt. The proofs I have brought are from the antient Hea-
then writers themfelves, and not from any Chriflian authors, ex-
cept as far as they are fupported by the former. Nor can I think
tlierc is any danger of what fome good perfons might poffibly be
apprehenfive of, that this might tend to diminifli the horror of
vices, which are juflly accounted moft deteftable and odious.
The only inference that can juftly be drawn from it is, that the
biafs of corrupt cufloms, and vicious appetites and paffions, are
i apt
PREFACE. W
apt to over-rule the moral fentiments of the human mind, and tend
to ilifle the remonftrances of confcience, and even to bribe reafoa
to iudge too favourably concerning practices which it would
othervvife reje£t with abhorrence. It alfo fliew?, that a Divine
Revelation, and an exprefs law of God, enforced by the {Irongeil
fanftions, may be of great ufe in point of morals, even with rc-
fped: to the reftraining men from thofe things, the evil and turpi-
tude of which feem to be mod apparent to reafon and nature.
Notvvithflanding the corruptions that have prevailed among many
who have taken upon them the name of Chriftians, and whicli
fome have taken pains to exaggerate, the moft abominable vices
have been far from being fo general among them, as they were
in thofe that have been efleemed the mofl refined nations of Pa-
ganifm. It is not to be doubted, but that vaft numbers of thofe
who believe the Gofpel have.ibeen and are preferved by the purity
of its precepts, and the power of its fandtions, from vices. to
which otherwife they would have given a boundlefs indulgence.
Nor can any who believe the Chriftian religion allow them-
felves in vicious pradices, without finning againft the cleared:
light, and breaking through the ftrongeft engagements. I do not
fee, therefore, how they can be accounted real friends to the pu-
rity of morals, who are for taking away or diminifliing the force
of thofe motives and fandtions which the Gofpel propofes, and
which, where they are really believed, tend both to animate good
men to a holy and virtuous pradice by the mofl: glorious hopes
and profpedls, and to deter the wicked from their evil courfes by
the moft amazing denunciations of God's righteous vengeance.
Vol. IL b V^iru
2 PREFACE.
"When wc confider the flrange fiuftuations of perfons of the
greateft abihtles in the Pagan world, with refpedt to feveral im-
portant points of religion and morality, and to the retributions of
a future ftate, it ouglit furely to make us highly thankful that we
have a written well-attefted Revelation in our hands, to which we"
raayTiave recourfe, both, foraflifting us to form a right judgment
in matters of the greateft confequcnce, and for regulating our
pra<5tice. And it has pleafed God in his great wifdom and good-
nefs to eftablifti its divine authority by fuch an abundance and
variety of proofs, as are every way fuitable to the importance of
the cafe, and are amply fufficient to engage though not to con-
ftrain the afTent. Chriftianity is not afraid of the light, or of a-
free and impartial examination and inquiry. It has always met
with the beft reception from thofe who have examined ir, in the
integrity of their hearts, with that ferioufnefs and attention which
the great importance of it well deferves. Let us therefore, with
minds freed as far as poffible from vicious prejudices, confider the
nature and excellency of the Chriftian religion, the fpirituality and
heavenlinefs of its doiflrines, the difcovcries that are there made
to us of thofe things which it is of the higheft concernment to
us to know, efpecially relating to the wonderful methods of the
Divine Wifdom and Grace for our redemption and {i\lvation, the
unqucftionahle excellency of its morals, and purity of its laws,
the power of thofe motives by which the pradice of them is en-
forced, and the admirable tendency of the whole to promote the
glory of God, and the caufe of rightecufnefs, piety, and virtue in
the wodd : let us then make proper refledions on the holy and
fpotlefs*
PREFACE. xl
fpctlefs life, and moft perfedt and fubllme charaifter of the great
Founder of our religion, and alfo on the charadcr of his difciples,
who publilhed it to the world in his name : that they appear to
have been perfons of great probity and fimplicity, incapable of
carrying on an artful iinpofturc, or of being themfclves the in-
ventors of that fcheme of religion which they taught, and which
was contrary in feveral inftances to their own flrongeft prejudices :
nor is there any thing in their whole temper and condud, in the
do<flrine they preached, or in the manner of propagating it, that
favours of the views of worldly policy, or that is cunningly ac-
commodated to humour men's prejudices and vicious paflions, and
gratify their ambition and fenfuality. But efpecially let us con-
fider the illuftrious atteftations given from heaven to the divine
miflion, both of the firft Author and publifliers of the Chriftian
religion, by a feries of the mofl woiKlerful works, done in exprefs
confirmation of the religion they taught, and which manifcflly
tranfcendcd all human power or iTcill, and bore the evident tokens
of a divine interpofition : and that the truth of thefe fadls is afcer-
tained to us with all the evidence that can be reafonably defired in
fuch a cafe, and which, all things confidered, is as great as could
be expeded concerning any fadls whatfoever done in pafl: a£:cs.
To all this may be added the evidence arifing from clear and,
exprefs prophecies, relating to events which no human fagacity
could forefee, fome of them undeniably delivered and committed
to writing many ages before their accomplifliment, and yet in
due time pundlually fulfilled. All thefe are of great force, even
Separately confidered ; but when viewed and taken together in
b a their
xii PREFACE.
their juft connexion and harmony, form fuch a chain of proofs^
as carries a mighty force of conviction with it to an honeft and
unprejudiced mind, that is animated with a fincere love of truth.
The advocates of Chriftianity have frequently urged thefe argu-
ments with great clearnefs and ftrength ; and whilfb thcfe prooft
continue firm, and the original fadls are well fupported, the
truth and divine authority of the Chriftian religion fland upon
folid and immoveable foundations. Nor fliould we fuffer preju>-
dices arifing from the ill condudl of many of its profcffors and
teachers, or from fomc particular pallages of Scripture hard to be
underflood, or the difficulty of comprehending fome of its dodrines
which relate to things of a very fublime and myfterious nature,
at all fliake our belief of true original Chriftianity. It is a rule
laid down long fince by Ariflotle, and the juftnefs of which has
never been controverted, that we ought not to expedl in all things
the fame kind of evidence, but in every thing to content ourfelves
with fuch proofs as the nature of the fubjedl will bear. To infid
upon mathematical demonftration in matters of religion and mo-
rality, is perfetflly abfurd and unreafonable ; and yet the evidence
may be fuch as is fufficient to produce a certainty, though of an-
other kind, and which may very fully fatisfy the mind, and make
it reafonable for us to give our aflent to it, notwithftanding fome
objections that may be made againft it, and from which fcarcc any
truth is entirely free.
I fliall on this occafion confider a pretence that has been often
made ufc of by men of fccptical minds, that without an abfolute
certainty
PREFACE. xill
certainty (which they pretend is not to be had in what relates to
rehgion) they may reafonably and fafely withhold their aflent.
But fuch perfons ought to confider, that if tlicre be a probabiHty
on the fide of religion, though fhort of an ablblutc certainty, this
would induce an obligation upon them to receive it, and to govern
their temper and condu<ft by the rules it prcfcribes. Where a
thing appears to be probable, i. e. that there is more reafon for it
than the contrary, this does not leave the mind in a perfed: equi-
librium', and at liberty abfolutely to fufpend its aflent if it be a
matter of fpeculation, or to abftain from ading if it be a matter
of practice. This tlie Pyrrhonifts, who carried fcepticifm to the
greateft height, were fenfible of, and therefore would not allow
that any one thing is more probable than another j which feems
to me to be one of the greateft extravagancies that any man pre-
tending to reafon can be guilty ofj nor do I believe that any one
man, whatever he might pretend in words, could really bring
himfelf to think fo. Thofe of what was called the New Aca-
demy, though at the bottom little better than fceptics, faw the
abfurdity of this, and therefore though they would not acknow-
ledge a certainty, yet allowed a probability in things j and if
they had purfued this concefllon to its genuine confequences, it
would have fubverted the fcheme they had in view of a perpetual
fufpenfion of aflent. It is an undeniable maxim, that we ought
to follow evidence as far as it appears to us, and that therefore
that which is probable ought to :\viiy our judgment, and influence
our pradicc, according to the 'iicafure of its probability, and the-
preponderancy of the reafo' i which are brought for it. It is
manifcfl-
3^iv PREFACE.
maiiifcfl to every one that has any knowledge ol niankiiAl, that it
is probability which generally govvrns our conduCl, if we adl
prudently; and that the Author of our beings defigned it fliould
be Co. We arc fo conflituted, that in alnioll all cafes relating to
pradlicc, we are obliged to follow wliat appears to us upon a pro-
per confideration of it to be moft probable j and for any man wil-
fully to neglecfl a thing which would probably be of great ad-
vantage to him, or to do any thing which probably will expofc
him to great lofs and damage, would be juftly deeoied a very
foolidi and unreafonable tondudt, and in matters where duty is con-
cerned a very guilty one. Some of thofe who were otherwife much
addided to fcepticifm in fpeculation, have yet acknowledged, that
in the affairs of common life, people ought to follow probable
appearances. And if this is to be done in what relates to our pre-
fent temporal intereft and advantage, why not in that which re-
lates to our higheft happinefs ? The more important any affair
is, and the greater the danger is in negleding it, or the damage
to be fuftained by fuch a negledt, the more we are obliged, by
the foundeft maxims of reafon and good fenfc, to govern ourfelves,
and adl according to what appears to us upon a diligent enquiry
to be moft probable. And what reafon can be affigned, that we
Hiould not adl fo in matters of the greateft confequence, and in
which our everlafting falvation appears to be nearly concerned ?
In cafes of this nature, if the hazard be vaftly greater on one fide
than on the other, all the rules of prudence leads us to take that
part, which has the leaft hazard attending it, even though the
icvidencc on that fide fhould be fuppofed to be no greater, or
perhaps
PREFACE. XV
perhaps fomething Icfs, than on the other. But when both the
evidence is much ftronger on one fide, and at the fame time the
hazard men run by rejeding it much greater, to take that fide
which is both lefs probable and more dangerous, would be the
moft foolifh and inexcufable condudl in the world.
If therefore, upon a fair enquiry, there is at leaft a great pro-^
bability tliat the Chriftian Revelation came from God, it is both
our wifdom and duty to embrace it, and to govern ourfelves by
its excellent rules. No man in that cafe could run a hazard by
embracing the Gofpel, or at leaft a hazard in any degree equal to'
what he would expofe himfelf to by rejecting it. Let us fuppofe
that by complying with the terms of falvation which are there
propofed, he fliould deny himfelf fome of thofe liberties which
he would otherwife indulge, and controul his paflic:is by th&
Chriftian rules, which do not require us to extirpate the paflions
and appetites, but to govern and keep them within the bounds of
moderation and temperance, this is no more than the wifeft men
have advifed as the propereft way for fecuring a man's own tran-
quillity, and for preferving body and foul in a r?^ht temper. In
other cafes, men think it reafonable to hazard fome prefent lofs,
and to undergo fome prefent hardships and inconveniencies, on
the probable profpedl of avoiding a much greater evil, or procuring
fome valuable and fuperior advantage. But when the advantage
propofed is fo infinitely great as the rewards promiL-d to good
men in the Gofpel, and the evils fo great as the punifiiments-
there denounced agalnft the obftinately impenitent and difobedient,
it
xvi PREFACE.
it ought certainly to have proportionably a more powerful In-
fluence.
I hope every reader tliat brings with him a mind fincerely dif-
pofed to know the truth and follow it, will join with me in
earneft fupplications to God, who is a lover of truth and holinefs,
that he would be gracioufly pleafed to clear our minds from vi-
cious prejudices, and difpel the clouds of ignorance and error,
that we may receive the truth in the love of it, may behold it in
its convincing light, and feel its transforming power, and may
bring forth fruits fuitable to it in a holy and virtuous life, to the
^lory of God, and our own eternal falvation.
CONTENTS
CONTENTS
O F T H E
SECOND VOLUME.
PART II.
JW
CHAP. I.
''AN appears from the frame of his nature to be a moral agent,
and defigned to be governed by a law. Accordingly^ God hath
given him a law to be the rule of his duty. The fchetne of thofe
who pretend that this law is naturally and neceffarily known to
all men without inflruSlion, contrary to fa^ ajid experience.
Tet there are feveral ways by which men come to a knowledge of
this law, and of the duty required of the7n ; viz. by a moral
fenfe implanted in the hum in heart ; by a principle of reafon
judging from the natures and relations of things ; by education,
and human inJlruBion : befides all which, God hath made dif-
coverics of his 'u:ill concerning our duty, in a way of extraordi-
nary Divine Revelation. Page i , 2
C H A P. II.
The principal heads of moral duty were made known to mankind
from the beginning, and continued to be known and acknowledged
Vol. II. c in
CONTENTS.
in the patriarchal ages. When men fell from the right knoic-
ledge of God, they fell alfo in important injlancei from the right
knowledge of moral duty. The law given to the people of Ifrael
was defigned to injlrucl and direct them in morals, as ■aril as in
the kiwictvdge and worjhip of the one true God. A great deal
ivas done in the methods of Divine Provideiice, to preferve the
fenfe and knoioledge of morals among the heathen nations; but
they did not make a right ufe of the helps afforded them. p. 20
CHAP. III.
A particular enquiry into the flate of morality in the Heathen
•world. A complete rule of morals ^ taken in its ju/l extent^
xcmprehcnds the duties relating to Gcdy our neighbours, and
ourf'lves. If the Heathens had fuch a rule among them, it
nvould appear either in the precepts of their religion, or in the
prefcriptions of their civil laws, or cufloms lahich have the force
of laws, or in the doBrines and in/lr unions of their philofophers
and moralijis. It is propofed diflinSly to confider each of thf'c.
As to what pflffed among them for religion, morality did not
properly make any part of it, nor ivas it the office of their priefls
to teach men virtue. As to the civil laws and confiitutions,
fuppofmg them to have been never fo proper for civil government,
they were not fitted to be an adequate rule of morals. The befl
of them were, in feveral refpeSIs, greatly defeSlive. Various
inflances produced of civil laws, and of cufloms which had the
force of laws, among the mojl civilized nations, efpecially among
the ant lent Egyptians and Greeks, which were contrary to the
rules of morality. P- 3^
CHAP.
CONTENTS.
CHAP. IV.
Farther injlanca of civil laws and cufioms among the Pagan iia-
tiom. Tbofe of the antient Ro/nans confiderej. Tije laxvs of
the tivehe tables, though mightily extolled, icere far from eX'
hibiling a complete rule of morals. The law of Romulus con-
cerning the expofing of difeafed and deformed children. This con-
tinued to be pradlifed among the Romans. Their cruel treatment
of their Jlaves. Their gladiatory peivs contrary to humanity.
Unnatural lufls common among them as well as the Greeks. Oh-
fervations on the Chinefe laws and cuftoms. Other laws (tnd
cujloms of nations mentioned, which are contrary to good
morals. p. ^?
CHAP. V.
Concerning morality as taught by the antient Heathen philofophers.
Some of them faid excellent things concerning moral virtue, an. I
their writings might in fcveral refpcBs be of great ufe. But
they could not furnijh a perfeSi rule of morals, that had Jufficient
certainty, clearnefs, and authority. No one philofopher, or feci
of philofophers, can be abfolutely depended upon as a proper guide
in matters of 7norality. Nor is a complete fyjlem of morals to be
extracted from the writings oj them all collectively confidered. The
lianity offuch an attempt Jhewn. Their fentiments, how excel-
lent foever, could not properly pafsfor laws to mankind, p. 8o
CHAP. VI.
Many of the philofophers were fundamentally wrong in the firfl
principles of morals. They denied that there are any moral dif-
c 2 fcrcnccs
CONTENTS.
fcrencci of things founded in nature and reafon, and refohed
them wholly into human laivs and cujloms. Obfervatlons on thofe
phltofophcrs icho made mans chiej good confiji In pkafure^ and
fropofcd this as the hlghejl end oj morals^ •without any regard to
a Divine Law. The moral fy/i em of Epicurus confide red. His
high pretences to 'virtue examined. The inconjljiency of his prln~
clples Jhenvn, and that. If purfued to their genuine confequences^
they are really dfruBroe of all virtue and good morals. p- 5> 2
C H A P. VII.
The fentlmcnts of thofe who are accounted the beji oj the Pagan
moral philofophers ccnfidered. They held In general, that the
law is right reafon. But reafon alone, without a fuperlor au-
thority^ does 770t lay an obliging force upon men. The liifjl
Heathens taught, that the original of law was from God, and
that from him It derived its authority. As to the quejllon, hciv
this law comes to be hiown to us, they fometlmes rcprefent It as
naturally kno%vn to all men. But the principal way of knowing
it is rejblved by them Into the mind and reafon of wife men, or,
in other words. Into the doBrlnes and Injlrudllons oj the philo-
fophers. The uncertainty of this rule of morals Jhewn. Th<y
talked highly oj virtue in general, but differed about matters oj
great importance relating to the law of nature : fome injlances
of which are mentioned. p. up
CHAP. VIII.
"EplBetuss obfrvatlon concerning the difficulty of applying general
preconceptions to particular cafes, verified in the antient philo-
j'ophers. Ibey were generally wrong with reJ'pcSt to the duty and
worjhlp
CONTENTS.
worJJ.yp proper to be rendered to God, though they tlx'mf elves ac-^
knoiul edged it to be a point of the kigheji importance. As to fo'
cial duties, fome eminent philofophers pleaded for revenge and
againfl forgivencfs of injuries. But e/pecia'ly they were deficient
in that part of moral duty 'which relates to the government of the
fenfual appetites and paffions. Many of the philofophers counte-
nanced by their principles and praSlice the mojl unnatural lujls
and vices. Thofe of them that did not carry it fo far, yet en-
couraged an impurity inconlijlent with the ftriSlnefs and dignity
of virtue. Plato very culpable in this rejpeSl, fo alfo -were the
Cynics and Stoics. Simple fornication generally allo'wed atnong/i
them. Our modern deijls very loofe in their principles vslth re-
gard to fenfual impurities. P- 1 3 2
C H A P. IX.
7'he Stoics the mojl eminent teachers of morals in the Pagan ivorld.
Mightily admired and extolled both by antients and moderns.
Ohfervations on the Stoical maxims and precepts %)ith regard to
piety towards God. Their fcheme tended to take away^ or very
much weaken, the fear of God as a punifjer of fin. It tended
alfo to raife men to a fiate of /elffufficiency and independency,
inconpftent with a due veneration for the Supreme Being,
Extravagant firains oj pride and arrogance in fome of the prin-
cipal Stoics. Confefiion of fin in their addreffes to the Deity mad^
no part of their religion. p. ij^
CHAP. X.
'The Stoics gave excellent precepts with regard to the duties men
ewe to one another. Yet they carried their docJrine of apathy fo
CONTENTS.
. Jti>\ as to he in fame injlances not properly cofijijlent laith a hu-
I'lanc difi^ojuion and a charitable Jympatlyy. 'They f aid fine things
concerning Jorgivlng injuries and bearing •ivith other men's
faults. But in J'everal refpeSls they carried this to an extreme,
and placed it on wrong foundations^ or enforced it by improper
motives. "This is particularly Jhewn with regard to thofe two
eminent philofophcrs EpiSletus and Marcus Antoninus. The viojl
ontient Stoics did not allow pardoning mercy to be an ingredie7it
in a peffeB charaSler. P- 1S3
CHAP. XL
Ihe Stoical precepts with regard to fclf-government confidered.
They talk in highfirains of regulating and fubduing the appetites
and paffions ; and yet gave too great indulgence to the fleflily con-
ciipifcence, a7id had not a due regard to purity and chajlity.
Their do5lrine of fuicide confidered. Some of the mojl eminent
wife men among the Heathens, and many of our modern admirer %
of natural religion faulty in this refpeB. Thefal/l?ood and per-
nicious confcquenccs cf this do&rine Jhencn. p. 2c6^
CHAP. XII.
The Stoics profefjed to lead men to perfcSl happincfs in this prefent
life^ abjlraBing from all confideration of a future Jiate. Their
fcheme of the abfolute fufjiciency of virtue to kappinef's, and the
indifferency of all external things, confidered. They were fome-
timcs obliged to make conccffions which were not very confijlcnt
with their fyjlcm. Their phihfophy in its rigour not reducible
to pra^icc, and had little infucnce either on the people or on
^ themfelves.
CONfENTS.
themfehes. They did mt glv a dear idea of the nature of that
'virtue ivbich tb-; fo bigbk extolled. The hofe do&rine of mam
of the Stoics J as ivell as other philojophers, with regard to truth
and lying. p. 229
CHAP. XIII.
The nations ivere funk into a deplorable Jiate of Corruption, "with
regard to morals, at the time of our Sa\iour's appearing. To
recover them from their 'wretched and guilty jiate to holinefs and
bappinejs, one principal e?id for which God fent his Son into the
world. The Gofpel Difpcnfition opened with a free offer of
pardon and fahation to perip.nng finncrs, upon their returning
to God hy faith and repentance, and new obedience : at the fatne
time the beji direBions and ajijlances were giwn to engage them
to a holy and virtuous praSlice. Ihe Gofpel fcheme of morality
exceeds whatfoever bad been publified to the world before. A
fummary reprefentation of the excellency of the Gofpel precepts
with regard to the duties we o^ve to God, our neighbours^ and
ourfehes. Thefe precepts enforced by the mojl powerful and im-
portant motives. The tendency of the Go/pel to promote the prac-
tice of holinefs and virtue, an argument to prove the Divinity of
the Chrijlian Revelation. p. 2 53
PART
CONTENTS.
PART iir.
CHAP. I.
The importance of the doBrine of a future flate. It is agreeable to
right reafon. The natural a?id mora! arguments for a future
Jlate of great weight. Tet not fo evident, but that if tnen were
left merely to their own unajfifted reafon, they would be apt to
labour under great doubt and difficulties. A "Revelation from
God concerniiig it would be of great advantage. p. 295", 296
CHAP. II.
Some 7iotions of the immortality of the foul and a future fate ob-
tained among vianUnd from the mofl antiejit timcs^ and fpread
' ' 've'ry generally through the nations. This was not originally the
effcB of human reafon and philofophy, nor was it merely the in-
vention of legifators for political purpofes ; but was derived to
them by a vjoft antient tradition from the earlicfl ages, and was
probably a part of the primitive religion communicated b\ Divine
Revelation to the firfi of the human race. p. 303
C H A P. III.
The. antient traditions concerning the immortality of the foul and a
future fate became in procefs of time greatly ohfctired and cor-
rupted. It was abfolutcly denied by many of the philofophers,
and rcjcSled as a vulgar error. Others reprefcntcd it as alto-
gether uncrlain, and having no f Aid foundation to fupport it.
The
CONTENTS.
The various and contre.d'iSiory fentments of the phllofophers con^
cerning the nature of the human foul. Many of the Peripatetics
denied the fubfiftence of the foul after Aeath, and this fcems to
have been Arifiotle's own opinion. 'The Stoics had no fettled or
conftftent fcheme on this head : nor isyas the do6lrine of the im~
mortality of the foul a doSirine of their fc hoc!, d future flat:
not acknoioledged by the celebrated Chinefe philofopher Confucius^
nor by the fe^ of the learned who profefs to he his difciples. p. 3 1 4
C H A P. IV.
Concerning the phihfophers -who profefj'ed to believe and teach the
immortality of the foul. ' Of thefe Pythagoras is generally efleemed
■ one of the mojl eminent. His doSlrine on this head fjcwn to be
not well confiflent with a flate of future rewards and piinijh-
ments. Socrates believed the immortality of the foul -and a future
flate, and argued for it. In this he was followed by Plato.
The doSirifie of Cicero with regard to the immortaUty of the foul
confidered. As alfo that of Plutarch. P* 334
C H A P. V,
\rhofe of the antient philofopher s who argued for .the immortality of
the foul., .placed it on wrong foundations ^ and mixed things with
it which wealien^\l the belief of it. Some of them afferted, that
the foul is immortal, as being a portion of the Divine Efj'ence.
They univerfally held tJ}e • pr^e-exiflence vf the human foul, and
. laid the chief firefs upon this for proving its itiunortality. Their.
doSlrine of the tranfmigraiion of fouls was a great corruption of
the true doBrinc of a future flate. Thofs whi faid the highefl
•. Vol. II. d things
CONTENTS.
.tkin-s of future happinefi^ confuiered it as cotifimd chiefiy ui
perfom of eminence, or to thofe of pbilofophical minds, and af-
forded fhal I encouragement to the common kind of pious and vir-
tuous perfons. The rewards of E/y/ium icere but temporary,
and of a fliort duration : and even the happinef of thofe privi-
leged fouls, tvho "Were fuppofed to be admitted not 7nerely into
Elyfium, but into heaven, icas tiot cverlafing in the friSi and
proper fenfe. 'The Gofpel doElritie of eternal life to all goad
■ and righteous perfons was tiot taught by the antient Pagan philo-
fophers. p. 3^0
CHAP. VI.
Thofe that feemed to be the mofl flrenuous advocates for the immor^
tality of the foul and a future fate among the antients, did not
pretend to any certainty concerning it. The uncertainty they
•were under appears from their way of managing their confolatory
•' difcourfes on the death of their friends. To this alfo it was
owing, that in their exhortations to virtue they laid Utile flrefs
on the rewards of a future fate. Their not having a certainty
concerning a future fidte, put them upon fchemes to fupply the
want of it. Hence they infifled upon the felf-fujiciency of virtue
for complete happinefs without a future recompence : and affcrtcdy
that afhort happinefs is as good as an eternal one. p. 380
CHAP. VII.
J fate of future rewards neceffarily connotes future punijhncnts.
The belief of the former without the latter might be of pernicious
confluence. The antient philofophers and legifators were fen-
fbk
CONTENTS.
fibk of the importance and necejfity of the doufrine of future pu->
7jif}me}tts. Tet they generally rejeSled and difcarded them as
"jain and fuperflitious terrors. The maxim uni-oerfally held by
the philofophers, that the gods are never angry ^ and can do no
hurt, confidered. p. 402
CHAP. VIII.
The generality of the people, efpecially in the politer natio?is of
Greece and Rome, had fallen in a great meafure from the belief
of a future fiate before the time of our Saviour s appearing.
This is particularly flieivn concerning the Greeks, by the tefli-
monies of Socrates and Polybius. The fame thing appears -with
regard to the Romans, Future punifJjments were difregarded
and ridiculed even among the vulgar, who in this fell from the
religion of their anceflors. The refurreSlion of the body rejedled
by the philofophers of Greece and Rome. p. 423
CHAP. IX.
Our Lord Jefus Chrifi brought life and immortality into the jnofl
clear and open light by the Gofpel. He both gave the fullefl af-
furance of that everlafling happinefs lohich is prepared for good
men in a future fate, and made the mofi inviting difcoveries of
the nature and greatnefs of that happinefs. The Gofpel alfo con^
tains exprefs declarations concerning the Tunifhment which fhall
he infiiSled upon the wicked in a future flat e. The necefjity and
itfiportance of tins part of the Gofpel Revelation f:ewn. The
conclufion, with fame general refections upon the whole, p. 442
ERRATA to the SECOND VOLUME.
Ta^e 29. Note, line ult.fir Navjretti's, rwrf Navarcttj's. P. 43. /. "i.fsr polilic»l, r. policed. P. 44. '. i/r.
j> Abfton. r. AblUn. P. 48. /. uli.fcr Paris, r. Davis. P. 49. /. 11. /or Kpwlia, r. xjiIt'ij. P. 65.
Note, /. yfer ut, »•. et. P. 69. Nitc, I. 2. /or egrcgibu5, r. e gregibui. /Wrf. /. 4. for philofophii, r.
philofophis. P. 71. Tb'cr.', /. 7./or chap. 7. r. chap". 6. /*. /. lo./or 15. r. 14. P. yy. /. i-j./tr Tri-
tantius, r. Tiig.iltius. P. 76. /. 8. /or »ny, r. an. P. 77. Ni>te, I. ■2.. f,r i. r. ii. ari/ /. .v/r./w ibid. r.
)ib. i. P/90. ). ig./ir laid, r. had. P. 9;. /. ti't.fir 9S. r. 93. P. 9?. /. n/r. .i/Jfr critiqacs, r. torn.
I. Uttrc iv. P. 102. A'c/f, /. i./r j8, r. 132. P. 114. A'-/.-, /. i. _/or cap. 6.. r. cap. 5. P.. 115./. 17.
/jr 9£»),avT», r. &eo^:5>-ra. P. 116. /or re O, r. reft. P. III. A'o/s, /. 7. /or ut, r. eU. P. 126. /.
19. /or laudato, r. laudata. P. 136. /. ull.far lib. i. r. lib. iv. P. 137. Site, I. ■^.for fcft. S. r. fefl. 3.
p. <4<'- l.i.fir Opero, r. Opcr. /*. /. 9./r 901. r. 909. P. i ;s. /. 18. /or Alpian, r. t/lpnn. P,
362. /. 7. ff/Jcr part, r. of. p. 166. /. nil. fii 1043. *■• 'O-IO- ^' >73' '• i5./or vocis, r. votis, ard/or
fa tc, r. f.K re. P. 174. Nile, I. 10 /or cp. 17. r. cp. 18. P^ i84.if. iD./arfervitas, r. fcrvitus. P.
199. Nuie, I. 6. /or 108. r. 109. P. 196. /. 4. dele and, P. 19S. Noli, I, i. /r//,r Medit. r. book v. P.
203. /. 21. /jr 78. r. 17S. P. 20+. /. 7. r. a fapicnte. P. 107. A'o.v, /. i.yir iS. r. 13. P. zog. A'ac,
A j./r 31. r. 33. P. 214. Ncie, 1. i. fir cap. 2a. r. ep. 22, P. 215. Nete, !. 1. fir !t(\. 2. r. feO. ;,
P. 2l6. 7. uli.fir modeft, r. modcfty. P. 220. A'lff, /. fj.fcr Bounhours, r. Bouhoi'rs. P. 232. iV'or,
7. I. </r.r DilVut. r. lib. V. P. 233. Ni(e, I. ^.for 236. r. 239. P. »42. Nofe, /. I. ie/cre f.pift. >, Pk-
tarch. Oper. torn. II. p. 1034. /A. /or chap. 6. r. chap. 16. P. 249. /. j./or v|.£Ljai, r. 4u3si. P. 25S,
Xi'cu, I. 4. /Ir John, r. Job. P. 266. /. 10. after iuft, </t/<- of.. /*. /. u/t.fir I J.hn ii: 3. r. 1 John ii. i, 2.
P. z&». Ncte, /. I./or Micah vi.2. r. vi. 8. P. 273. 7Vi,«, /. i./.rPf, Ixxxv. r. Pf. Ixxxii. P. 174.' Jtf.«,
/. 5./r 16. r. 12. P. 276. A'o/t, /. i.fir Prov. vi. r. Prov. v. P. 278. A'c.v, /. 2. a/fr M.itt. vi. 24. r.
Mark x. 24. P. 282. A'o«, /. 3. /or 17. r. 7. P. 293, Afo/r, /. 3. r. aujourdhui. P. 304. /. nil. fir 387,
r. 378. P. 307. Noft, /. 2. fir humaioe, r. heureufe. P. 320. /. rJt.fir foul, r. fouls. P. 321. A'o.v, /,
T. /;.• 228. r. 226. P. 331. /. I. /or caflical, r. cladicil. P. 332. /. ulr.fir 197. r. 199. P. 338. /. 23,
_/«r mortcs,. r. n)«rti«. P. 342. /. ^.fir rcvertitur, r. revtrtetur. P. 359. A n/f. /or Confol. ad uxorjr,
de fcra numihis vindicla. P, 363. AW, /. 4^/r 370. r. 379. Ii. I. 17. iT/>fr Enncad, r.v. P. 366./.
T-i-fir fingualar, r. fingular. P. 369. /. 14. yir principal, r. principle. P. 381. /. 5. for Ji;r;^:.fio-aiui>,
r. >ii>;)^i;fjToi/«i>. p. 387. /. ult.fir 353. r. 358. P. 411. /. 15. fir maneat, r. nianeant, P, 413,
A'o'r, /. 4./r 566, I. 556, P 416, A'o/r, /. 5. fer nofcerc, r, nocere. /A. /. nil. fir cap. 2. r. cap. 3.
P. 420. JVo«, f. I. r. iSi. P. 421. "Nue, t. I. fir 521, r. 518. /A. /. 3./>r Amaior. r. adverf. Colot.
P. 424. /. 15. r. iwiWav. P. 427. /. 4./:r belief, r. didclief. P. 429. Ai'f, /. I./or cap. 5. r. cap. 51,
/*. 443. .'. 9. r. the immortality of the foul. P. 446. Nile, I. 5. ij/I^r ix. r. 12. P. 45^, A'..'*, /. I./or
/j6. r. 43, Jb. I, 2./r49, r. 59. P. 461. A's.r, /. 2. /or nations, r, r«cci\eJ notions.
THE
ADVANTAGE and NECESSITY
OF THE
CHRISTIAN REVELATION,
SHEWN FROM THE
State of Religion in the antient Heathen World.
PART ir.
Relating to a Rule of Moral Duty.
C H A P. I.
Man appears from the frame of his nature to be a moral agent,
and defigncd to be governed by a law. Accordingly, God hath
given him a law to be the rule of his duty. The fcheme of thofe
-ivho pretend that this law is naturally and necejj'arily known to
all men without inJiruSlion, contrary to fa[i and experience.
Tet there are federal ways by which men come to a knowledge of
tbts law, and of the duty required of them ; viz, by a moral
Vol. II. B fe„fe
2 M(jn is a Moral Jgent, Part II.
fejife iviplanted i?i the hinuin heart j by a principle of reajoii
judging from the natures and relations rf things ; by education,
and human inJlruSlion : be fides all which, God hath made dif-
coverics of his lisill concerning our duty, in a ivny of extraordi-
nary Divine Revelation.
HAVING confidered the ftate of the antient Heathen
Nations, with refpedt to the knowledge and worfliip
of the one true God, and fliewn the need they flood
in of an extraordinary Divine Revelation, to recover thcni from
that amazing ignorance of God, and that idolatry and polythcifm,
into which they were falleaj I now proceed to the next tiling I
propofed, which was to confider the ftate of the antient heathen
world with regard to a rule of moral duty.
That it is of great importance to mankind to have clear di-
veftions given them concerning moral duty in its juO; extent, and
to have it enforced upon them by a fufficient authority, and by
proper arguments and motives, is evident to a confulering mind.
And many have been of opinion, that this is fo manifcfi: and
obvious to natural reafon, that there is no need of Divine Revela-
tion, either to teach men their duty, or to enforce upon them
moral obligations. This feems to have a plaufiblc appearance, if
we confider the m:itter abftradlly, and in a way of fpeculation.
But the furcft: vvay of judging of it is from fadt and experience : for
if it appears that in fa6t the moft knowing and civilized natiorrs in
the heathen world, and the wifcft and ablcft men among tlxim,
have labourtd under great uncertainties, and even fallen into
dangerous
Chap. I. (iftd defigned to he governed by a Law. 3
dangerous errors with regard to fcveral important branches of
moral duty } and that they have alfo been greatly deficient in the
propofing fuch motives, as might be moll proper and efficacious
for enforcing tlie practice of it j this affordctli a llrong prefumption
of the weaknefs of human reafon in this rcfped:, when left merely
to itfelf in the prefent flate of mankind : and that an exprcfs Re-
velation from God, both for inflrudting us in moral duty in its
jufl extent, and enforcing it upon us by the moll powerful mo-
tives, would be of the greateft advantage to mankind.
To prepare our way for a due confideration of this fubjedl, it
will be proper, in the firfi: place, to offer fome general obfervations
concerning man as a moral agent, and concerning the feveral ways
by which he may be fuppofed to conae to the knowledge of hi*
duty.
That man is a moral agent, the proper fubjecl of moral go-
vernment, is as evident as that he is a reafonable creature, or that
he is capable of virtue and vice, praife and blame. And what-
ever fome perfons may difpute in a way of fpeculation, moral or
free agency, though it may be difficult to fettle the precife meta-
phyfical notion of it, or to anfwer all the objections which fub-
til and fceptical men may form againfl it, is what all men arc
intimately confcious of The fclf-approving and felf-condemning
refledlions of a man's own mind plainly fhew it to be fo. God
hath not only given man a body, and animal powers and inftinds,
fuited to the ufcs and enjoyments of the animal and fenfitive life,
but he hatli made him capable of difcerning the moral differences
B 2 of
4. God hath given a Lain to Mankind Part II.
of things, and hath given him a fenfe of good and evil, right and
wrong, a felf-determining and a felf-refledling power, whereby
he is capable of chufing and adling for himfelf, and of pafling a
judgment on his own adtions. There are few, but have had
experience of an inward felf-approbation or difapprobation, arifing
from the workings of a confcious principle within, according as
they have been fenfible of their having performed, their duty or
the contrary. And God's having made them creatures of fuch a
kind, i. e. reafonable and moral agents, capable of a fcnfe of
moral obligation, is a demonftrative proof, that he defigned thtm
to be governed in tliat way, in which it is fit for mord agents to
be governed ; i. e. by giving them laws to be the rule of their duty.
And if God hath given men laws, it mufl be his will that thofe
laws fhould be obeyed j and as a wife and righteous moral go-
vernor, he will deal with them agreeably to the laws which he
hath given them, and will reward or puniih them according to
their obedience or difobedience to thofe laws.
But fince no law is obligatoiy, except it be promulgated, and in
fome way publiihed to thofe who are to be governed by it, we
may reafonably conclude, that if God hath given a law to man-
kind, which they are obliged to obey, he hath not left them under
an invincible ignorance of that law, but hath made fuch difcoveries
of it tc^ them, that if it be not their own fault, they may know
what that duty is which. God rcquireth of them, as far as it is
ncccffary for them to do fo.
Some
Cliap. I, as a Rule of Moral Duty. j
Some have carried this io far as to aflert, that all men have a
natural knovvledge of the" whole of their duty by an intimate con-
fcious perception, and an inward univerfal light, independent of
all outward teaching. To this they apply that paffage of Lu-
can,
" — — — nee voclbus ullis
" Numen eget, dixitque femel nafcentibus audtor
" Quicquid fcire licet."
As if God di<flated to all men from their very birth, the whole of
what is neceflciry for them to know with regard to their duty, fo
that they ftand not in need of any farther vocal or verbal in-
flrudtion. This feems to have been Lord Herbert's fcheme, and
is that of Dr. Tindal, in his famous book, intituled, " Chriftianity
" as old as the Creation." Lord Bolingbroke frequently exprefles
himfelf to the fame purpoffs. He fays, that " natural Revelation
" (as he calls it) produces a feries of intuitive knowledge from
*' the firft principles to the lafl: conclufions [a)." Where he fup-
pofes, that both the firft principles of the law of nature, and all
the conclufions drawn from them, are intaitively and infallibly
known to every man. Accordingly he declares, that " it is a
•' perpetual ftanding Revelation always made, always making,
" to all the fons of Adam," and affirms, that " it is intelligible
" at all times and all places alike, and proportioned to the
" meaneft undcrftanding [h)." Or, as he elfewhere has it, " The
{(j) BolIhgbroke'S Works, Vol. IV. p. 276. edit. 410.
{k) Ibid. p. 91. 94. 96, 97.
" tables
6 'The Knoioh'Jge of Moral Duly i'art II.
•' tables of the natural law are fo obvious to the fight of ail men,
*' that no man who is able to read the plaineft characters can
" miftake them (<:)." According to this fcheme, there is not the
Icaft need of any extraordinary external Revelation. And it would
equally prove, that all the endeavours of philofophers, moralifts,
and legiflators, to inftruft mankind in matters of morality, were
perfedlly necdlefs and fupcrfluous. I have already offered fonie
confiderations to Hiew the abfurdity of this fcheme {d) : and the
following treatife will contain the fullcft confutation of it; by
which it will appear how prone mankind have always been to
miftake the law of nature, in very important inflanccs of moral
duty. It is indeed fo contrary to the experience and obfervations
of all ages, that one would be apt to wonder that any men of
fenfe fliould infift upon it : and yet the fame pretence is ftill re-
peated by the enemies of Revelation. And fome others of a dif-
ferent charadler have expreffed themfelves very inaccurately and
unwarily on tliis fubjedt.
But though tliis pretence of the univerfal clearnefs of the law
of nature to all mankind, independent of all farther inftrudion,
cannot be admitted, as being contrary to the moft evident fadl
and experience, yet it muft be acknowledged, that a great deal
hath been done in the courfe and order of Divine Providence, to
lead men into the knowledge of the duty required of them.
(f) Bolingbroke's Works, Vol. V. p. 153.
((/) See the fiift volume of this Work, Preliminary Difcourfc, p. 7, 8.
And
Chap. I. ccnimtinicalcd to Mankind in various Ways. j
And I . There is a moral fenfe implanted in the human mind,
which, if duly cultivated and improved, might be of great ule
for leading men, in many inllaiice?, to the notion and praftice of
moral duty. I know this is a point that has been contefted, and
I ihall not here enter into the debate. But it feems to me, that
fomething of this kind, by whatfoever name it is called, muft be
admitted. Whofoever carefully examines his own heart, will be
apt to think that there are moral feelings, difUntt from mere
reafoning, which incline him to certain ways of adting; and that
the mind of man is fo conrtltutcd, as to have an inward fenfe of
moral beauty or deformity in alllc] ions and a6lions, which, when
the human nature is in its right ftate, carries him to delight and
take a complacency in feme adtions as right and fit, beautiful and
lovely, and to diflike and difapprove the contrary. Some traces of
this are to be found in the human mind, even in its mofl: de-
generate ftate, and which can fcarce ever be utterly erafed. As
there are natural inftinct^ dirtind: from reafon, which tend to
the prelcrvation and convenience of the animal antl vital frame,
fo there fcem to be inftinfts of a moral kind, or propenfions and
inclinations, which, when duly regulated and improved, are of
eonfiderable ufe for leading men to a proper courfe of adion.
Such are the fecial and kind afTcdionSj lb natural to tlie human
heart, that they have obtained the name of humanity, and which,
fliew that men were born not merely for thcmfelves, but were
defigned by the author of their beings for mutual alliftance, and'
the offices of benevolence.
But
8 ^he Kiiowledge of Moral Duty Part II.
Bat then, for preventing miflakes in this matter, there are fe-
veral things proper to be here obferved. One is, that this moral
fenfe is not of equal ftrength and force in all men. It is moil: con-
fpicuous and eminent in fome noble and generous minds, in which
a kind of natural propcnlity to juftice, benevolence, gratitude,
&c. remarkably appears, and powerfully operates : and in otliers
it is fo weak, as fcarce to be perceived, or is overpowered by
vicious habits and corrupt affedions and appetites. It mufl be
acknowledged on the one hand, that the moral fenfe is capable
of being improved and ftrcngthened by reafon and refledtion : and
that on the other hand, it may be greatly perverted and depraved
by vicious cuftoms, inordinate lufls, and felfifli intercfts, by falfe
judgments of things, and evil examples. And I think it cannot
be denied, that it is fo much weakened in the prcfent ftate of the
human nature, that it is no way fit to be alone a fufficient guide
in morals, but ftandeth in great need of farther diredlion and
affiftance. Some have carried their notions of the extent and
efficacy of this moral fenfe beyond what reafon and experience
will warrant. The ingenious and polite Earl of Shaftelbury, after
having obferved, that there is a natural beauty of adlions as well as
figures, adds, that " no fooner are adlions viewed, no fooner the
" human affedlions and paflions difcerned (and they are moft of
" them difcerned as foon as felt) than llraight an inward eye di-
" ftinguifhes, and fees the fair and fliapely, the amiable and ad-
" mirable, apart from the deformed, the foul, the odious, and def-
" picablc." This is elegantly exprcfled : but I fliould think, that
any one who impartially confiders human nature, as it appears in tlid
generality of mankind, muft own ^hat the inward eye, the eye of
I the
Chap. I. communicated to Mankind in various Ways. p
the mind, is now very much vitiated and obfcured, and that there
are many things which hinder its juft difcernment. The expe-
rience of all ages fliews, that men have been generally apt to
miftake idolatry and fuperftition, than which nothing in the
opinion of this noble author can be more odious and defpicable,
for the moft amiable thing in the world, true religion and piety.
And even with refped: to the duties men owe to one another, and
the government of their own affediions and paffions, how often
have they been miftaken in their notions of the f;iir, the amiable,
and admirable, apart from the foul and deformed, the odious
and defpicable ? The cuftom of expofing weak and helplefs
children, which, one fliould think, is contrary to the moft in-
timate feelings of humanity, obtained very generally among the
moft civilized nations ; and yet they do not appear to have been
fenfible that in this they adled a wrong and inhuman part, but
rather looked upon it to be a prudent and juftifiable pradlice.
The various tribes of American favages, whom feme have re-
• commended as following the genuine dictates of nature, are fo far
from feeling any remorfe for the moft cruel inftances of revenge
on their enemies, or thofe who, they think, have injured them,
that they rejoice and glory in them as the noblcft exploits, and
both applaud themfelves, and are applauded by others, on the
account of them. Many other inftances of the like kind might
be mentioned, fome of which I fliall have occafion to take notice
of in the courfe of this work. It is not therefore a rule to be de-
pended on, which fome have laid down, that no man can violate
^he law of nature without condemning himfelf. The pleafure or
remorfe men feel in their refledions on their own adions, is fur
Vol. II. C from
lo the Kncwlc/lge of Moral Duty Part 11.
from being a lure mark and criterion of the moral gooilnefs or evil
of an adion in the prefent ftate of mankind. It is true, that the
mind is naturally carried to approve what it takes to be right and fit,
and praile-worthy, and to dilapprove and condemn what it takes to
be bafe and wrong; but then, in many inftances, it ftands in need of
direction and inftrudlion as to what is right and wrong. And when
it is well informed, then it is that it is fitly qualified to approve
and condemn in the proper place. It appears, therefore, that
what is called the moral fenfe was not defigned to be an adequate
guide in morals; nor is it alone confidered, and left merely to
itfelf, fit to have the fupreme diredtion as to the moral conduft.
It never was intended to preclude the ncccflity of inllrudion, but
to be an afTiflant to our reafon, to incline the mind more readily
to its duty, and produce a complacency in it ; and to create a
diflike and abhorrence of that which is evil and bafe, and to re-
train us from committing it.
This leads me to obferve,
2dly, That there is in man a principle of reafon, wliich is de-
figned to prefide over the propcnfions and affedions, and to dired
the moral temper and condud:. Man has an underftanding given
him, by which he is capable of enquiring into the natures and
relations of things, and confidering what thofe relations require.
And whatfoever clearly appeareth from the very nature and re-
lations of things to be fit and right for reafonable creatures to per-
form, we may juAly conclude, that it is the will of God who
conftituted that nature and thofe relations they fliould perform ;
^ and
Chap. I. communicated to Mankind in various Ways. 1 1
and when once it is confidered as the will of God, the fupremc
univerlal Lord and moral governor, then it is regarded not merely
as fit and realbnable in itlelt", but as a divine law, in the ftrideft
and propereft fenfe.
This way of difcovering our duty by fearching into the nature
and relations of things, when rightly performed, is of great ex-
tent. It fignifies, that we muft form jufl and worthy notions of
God, and of his glorious attributes and perfedlions, and the rela-
tions between him and us : that we mufl know ourfclves, and
the frame and conftitution of our own natures, as alfo the rela-
tions we {land in towards our fellow-creatures : that we muft
carefully confider and compare all thefe, and the fitnefles and ob-
ligations arifing from them ; and thence colledt our duty towards
God, our neighbours, and ourfelves. There are many who re-
prefcnt this not only as the furelT; way of coming to the right
knowledge of the duty which God requircth of us, but as cafy
and obvious to all mankind. Lord Bolingbroke frequently talks,
as if every man was able in this way to form a complete fyftem
of Religion and Morals for himfelf, without the leaft difficulty.
He fays, that " we more certainly know the will of God in this
" way, than we can know it in any other :" and, " that it admits
" of no doubt (i')." And that " by employing our reafon to col-
" IciSt the will of God from thefund of our nature phyfical and mo-
" ral, and by contemplating frequently and ferioufly the laws that
" are plainly and neceflarily deducible from them, vve may acquire
(<••) Bolingbrokc's Works, vol. IV. p. 287. and vol. V. p. 196. edit. 4(0.
C 2 not
11 The Knoxvledge of Moral Diif\' Part 11.
" not only a particular knowledge of thofc laws, but a general,
" and in fome fort an habitual, knowledge of the manner in
" wliich God is pleafed to exercife his fupreme power in this
" fyftem, beyond which we have no concern (/)." I readily
own, that this fearching into the relations and conftitution of
things, when carried on in a proper manner, may be of great ufc
for coming at the knowledge of the law of nature, and for fhew-
ing, that the main principles of moral duty are founded in the
nature of things, and are what right reafon, duly exercifed, will
approve, when fairly explained and fet in a proper light. But
certainly this is not the ordinary way for the bulk of mankind to
come to the knowledge of their duty. There are few who have
leifure or capacity, or inclination for profound enquiries into the
natures and reafons of things, and for drawing proper conclufions
from them concerning the will of God. That which the inge-
nious and noble author now mentioned feems to lay the principal
flrefs upon, viz. the employing our reafon to colle<ft the will of
God from the fund of our nature phyfical and moral, is far from
being fo eafy a tafk as he reprefcnts it. The knowledge of the
human conftitution, taken in a phyfical and moral view, includes
a knowledge of body and foul in man, of the diftindlion between
them, and the union of both, from whence duties refult relating
to the welfare of the whole compound : it takes in the knowledge
of our appetites and paflions, our affedions and inftindts, and of
our rational and moral powers, that by comparing all thefe, we
may know wherein confifteth the proper order and harmony of
(/) Bolingbrokc's Works, vol. V. p. loo. Sec .ilfo p. 154. 178. 196. 27J.
our
Chap. I. communicated to Mankind in various Ways. 13
our natures, what are the jufl limits of our appetites and paffions,
how far they are to be gratilied, and how far to be retrained.
And can it be pretended, that every particular perfon, if left
merely to himfelf, is able, without afiiftance or inftrudlion, to
confider and compare all thefc, and to deduce from them a com-
plete fyftem of laws for his own condud; ? The rule which a
noted author has laid down as fufficient for the diredlion of man-
kind is this, that " they are fo to regulate their appetites, as will
" conduce to tlie exercife of their reafon, the health of their
*' bodies, and the pleafure of their fenfes, taken and confidered
" together, lince therein their happinefs confifts (^)." But if
thii be all the law that any man has to govern him in this matter,
it is to be feared, that the biafs of his appetites and paffions, and
the pleafures of his fenfes, would generally bring over his reafoa
to judge in their own favour. Lord Bolingbroke, who, in the
pafTage cited above, fuppofes that all men may eafily colledl the
will of God from the fund of their own nature phyfical and moral,
gives this account of the human fyftem : that " man has two
" principles of determination, affedions and paffions excited by
" apparent good, and reafon, which is a fluggard, and cannot
" be fo excited. Reafon muft be willed into action : and as this
" can rarely happen, when the will is already determined by af-
•* fedlions and paffions ; fo when it docs happen, a fort of com-
" pofition generally happens between the two principles : and if
" the affedions and paffions cannot govern abfolutely, they obtain
*' more indulgence from reafon than they deferve, or than fhe
{g) ChriAianity as old as the Creation, p. 14.
" would
I .J. The Knoivkdge of Moral Duty Part II.
" would Ihew if flie were entirely free from their force {h)."
And he exprefly affirms, that " the appetites, paflions, and im-
" mediate objefts of pleafure, will always be of greater force to
" determine us than reafon (;)." This, indeed, is too univerfally
ex'prellcd. It is not true, that the appetites and paflions, and
immediate objeds of pleafure, will always be of greater force to
determine us than reafon. Many inftances tliere have been of
excellent perfons, in whom reafon has been of greater prevalence
to determine them, than the paffions or prefent fenfual pleafure.
But it cannot be denied, that, in the prefent ftatc of mankind,
the cafe is generally as his Lordfhip reprefents it : and that, as he
clfewhere fpeaks, " amidft the contingencies that muft arife from
" the conftitution of every individual, the odds will be on the fide
" of appetite (/:)." To fet up every man therefore for his own
legiflator, as if he were fit to be left to form a fyfliem of law and
duty for himfclf, without any farther inftrudlions, is a romantic
fcheme, and would tend to introduce a general confufion and li-
centioufnefs, to the fubverfion of all good order and morality. As
to the duties we owe to God, it fufficiently appears, from what
was obferved in the former part of this Work, how little man-
kind arc qualified, if left to themfelves without infiirudtion, to
form a right judgment concerning them. And with refpedl to
that part of our duty wiiich relates to the government of our own
(*) Dolingbrokc's Works, vol. V. p. 150. Sec alfo ibid. p. Ii6. 137. 227.
(;) Ibid. p. 267, 268.
(/) Ibid. p. 479.
appetites
■Chap. I. communicated to Mankind in vurious Ways. i r
appetites and pafTions, it will be eafily acknowledged, that the
bulk of mankind are not fit to be left to indulge them, as far as
they themfclves think reafonable. If every man was to judge
of his duty by what, in his opinion, tends moft to his own
happinefs in the circumltances he is in (which is the rule laid
down by thofe who make the higheft pretences to the Law and
Religion of Nature (/) in oppofition to Revelation) it would foon
bring in a very loole morality: fince there is nothing in which
men are more apt to deceive themfelvcs, and to form falfe judg-
ments, than in what relates to their proper happinefs. And even
as to that part of morals which relates to our duty towards man-
kind, and which includes the exercife of juftice, fidelity, benevo-
lence, charity, and the various oflices of the focial life, though
there feem to be ftrong traces of it in the human mind, and it is
what right reafon muft approve as agreeable to the relations we
bear to one another, yet I believe it will be granted, that it would
not be very proper to leave every man merely to himfelf, to fix
the meafures of juft and unjull, of right and wrong, in his deal-
ings and tranfadlions with other men. He would be often apt to
judge by falfe weights and meafures, and would be in great danger
of being led afide by his paflions and felfifh affcvflions and interefls,
which, it is to be feared, would frequently bribe his reafon to
form wrong and partial judgments of things. No human govern-
ment could be fafe upon this plan, if every man were to be left
abfolutely to his own diredion, without any other guide. All
the laws enacled by ftates and commonwealths, and all books of
(/) Dr. Tindal, Morgan, and others.
morality,
i6 'Jhe Knowledge of Moral Duty Part. II.
morality, written by the wifeft men in all ages, proceed upon
this fuppofition, that men fland in need of inftrudlion and af-
fiftance, in order to the right forming and regulating their moral
condud:.
Accordingly, I would obferve,
3dly, That another way by which men come to the know-
ledge of moral duty, is by the inftrudtions of others. This feems
to be manifeftly intended by the Author of our beings. We come
into the world in an infant ftate : we receive our firfl ideas of
things, the firfl rudiments of knowledge, from our parents, and
thofe about us : and the notions which are inftilled into our minds
in our early years, often make a deep and lafting impreflion, and
have no fmall influence upon our after-condudt. It is therefore
one of the principal duties of parents to endeavour to train up their
children betimes to worthy fentiments. Thus we find that, in
the Jewilh law, it is the exprefs command of God, frequently
urged by the higheft authority, that parents (liould take great and
afliduous care to inftrudl their children in the flatutes and precepts
which God had given them, and in the duties there required. It
16 mentioned to the praife of that excellent perlbn Abraham, that
" he commanded his children and houftiold after him to keep
•' the way of the Lord, to do juftice and judgment {m)." TJie
wifeft men in all ages have been fenfible of the great advantage of a
(w) Gen. xviii. 19.
good
Chap. I. commimicaicd to Mankind JH varicus Ways. 17
good education («), and that men are not to be left merely to
follow the did;ates of rude, undifciplined, and uninftruded na-
ture. As to matter of fadl, it can fcarce be denied, that no
fmall part of the notions men have of right and wrong, and
of what is blanieable and praife- worthy, comes by education and
cuftom, by tradition and inftrudion. And the vulgar almoft
every where adopt that fcheme of religion and morals, which pre-
vails in their refpedive countries. That great ftatefman and mo-
ralifl: Puffendorf, who was remarkable for his knowledge of the
law of nature and of mankind, afcribes " the facility which
*' children and ignorant people have in determining between juft
" and unjuft, right and wrong, to the habitude which they have
" inftnfibly contraded from their cradles, or from the time they
" firft began to make ufe of their reafon ; by obferving the good
" approved, and the evil difapproved, the one commended, and
" the other puniflied : and that it is owing to the ordinary pradlicc
" of the principal maxims of natural law in the events of com-
" mon life, that there are few people who have any doubt whe-
" ther thefe things might not be otherwife (0)." And Mr. Bar-
beyrac, in his notes upon it, after having obferved that " there h
" a manifcft proportion between the maxims of natural law, and
" the didlates of right reafon ; fo that it is perceived by the moft
" fimpie people from the moment they are propofed to them, and
" that they attend and examine them;" adds, that " perhaps they
(»r) See the Preliminary Difcourfe, in the fiifl volamc of this Work, p. 8.
(e) De Jur. Nat. et Gent. lib. ii. cap. 3. feci. 13.
Vol. II. D " could
l8 The Knowledge of Moral Duty Part II.
" could never have difcovered them of themfclves, and cannot al-
" ways comprehend the reafons of them, or diA:hi(ftly explain what
" they perceive concerning them ; and tiiat though no man who is
" arrived at the age of difcretion can rcafonably pretend to excufe
" himfelf as to this matter by invincible ignorance, yet it is never-
" thelefs true, that education, inftrudlion, and example, are the
*' ordinary canals by which thefe ideas enter into the minds of
" men : without this, the greater part of mankind would either
" almofl: entirely extingui(l:i their natural light, or would never
*' give the leaft attention to them. Experience fliews this but
" too plainly. Many things there are among favage people, and
" even among the moft civilized nations, fufficicnt to juftify this
" melancholy and mortifying truth. From whence (faith he) it
" ought to be concluded, that every man Ihould ufe his beft en-
" deavours to contribute, as far as is in his power, to infcrudt
" others in their duty, to eftablifh, ftrengthen, and propagate fo
" ufcful a knowledge (/>)." This is certainly one confidcrable
inflance in which the Author of our beings intended that men
fliould be helpful to one another, in proportion to their abilities
and opportunities. But it is, in a particular manner, incumbent
upon parents, mafters of families, Icgiflators and magiftrates, the
minifters of religion, and thofe who profefs to inflrud: men in the
fcience of morals. And fuch inftrudtions properly given are, no
doubt, of great advantage, and what we ought to be very thank-
ful for. But it is manifeft from experience, that merely human
inftrudion cannot be abfolutcly depended upon : and that men
(/) See Earbeyr.i(.'s Puffendoif, torn. L p. 217. not. 7. edit. Amfl.
have
Chap. I. communicated to Mankind in various Wap. i o
have been often led into wrong notions of morality, in very im-
portant inftances, by thofe who ought to have inftrufted them
better.
I would therefore obferve farther, that befides the feveral ways
which have been mentioned, whereby men come to the know-
ledge of moral duty, there is great need of a Divine Revelation,
in order to the fetting their duty before them in its juft extent,
and enforcing it upon them by the highed authority. It cannot
reafonably be denied, that God can, if he thinks ht, make dif-
coveries of his will to mankind, in a way of extraordinary Revela-
tion (y) ; and it is manifeft, that if he fliould pleafe to do fo,
fuch a Divine Revelation, confirmed by fufficient evidence, and
prefcribing in his name the particulars of our duty in plain and
exprefs precepts, would be of great ufe, and would come with
much greater weight and force, than merely human laws, or the
reafonings of philofophers and moralifts : and this method alfo
hath God taken in his dealings with mankind; which is a con-
vincing proof of his goodnefs, and the care he hath exercifed to-
wards them, in order to the leading men to the right knowledge
and pradice of their duty.
(y) See concerning this in tlje Preliminary Dlfcourfc prefixed to the formsr vo-
lume, p. 17. et fcq.
Da CHAP
ao The principal Heads of Moral Duty made knonn Part IL
C H A P. IL
97)1? principal heads of moral duty loere viade knoivn to mankind
from the beginning, and continued to be hioion and acknowledged
in the patriarchal ages. When men fell from the right know-
ledge of God, they fell alfo in important injlances from the right
htowledge of moral duty. The law given to the people of Ifrael
ivas defigned to inflruSl and direB them in morals, as well as in
the knowledge and laorfhip cf the one true God. A great deal
was done in the met/jods cf Divine Providence, to preferve the
fenfe and knowledge of morals among the heathen nations ; but
they did not make a right ufe oj the helps ajfordcd them.
IT has been fTiewn, in the former part of this work, that as
the firft man was formed in an adult ftate, and placed in a
world ready prepared, and amply provided for his reception and
entertainment, lb there is great reafon to think, that God com-
municated to him the knowledge of religion, in its main funda-
mental articles, cfpecially relating to the exiftence and perfedtions
of the Deity, and the creation of the world, that he might be in
an immediate capacity of ferving his maker, and anfwering the
great end of his being. And one of the firft: and moft: natural
enquiries, when he was made acquainted with the exiftence of .a
God of infinite perfedlions, his Creator and Sovereign Lord, muft:
have been what God would have him to do, and what was the
duty required of him, in order to fccurc the Divine Favour and
Approbation. For it cannot reafonably be fuppofcd, that he was
left
Chap. II. to Man in the Beginning by Divine Revelation. 2 1
left abfolutely to himfelf, and to his own will, to adl as he thought
fit, without any higher direcftlon or law to govern him. He could
have no human inftrudor to teach, or to advife him : he had no
f)arents or progenitors, whofe knowledge and experience might
have been of ufe to him : and as he had no experience of his own,
it is not probable that, in his circumflances, he was left to frame
a rule of duty for himfelf, and to find out the will of God by pro-
found difquifitions into tlie nature and relations of tilings. We
may therefore juftly fuppofe, that a wife and good God, who dc-
figned him to be governed by a law, gave him a law by which
he (hould be governed, and communicated his will to him in re-
lation to the duty required of him. And that this was aftualiy
the cafe in fatft, may be concluded from the fliort account given us
by Mofes of the primeval ftate of man. From that account it
appears, that man was not left at his firfl formation to acquire ideas
in the ordinary way, which would have been too tedious and flow
as he was circumftanced, but was at once furniflied with the know-
ledge that was then neceflary for him. He was immediately en-
dued with the gift of language, which ncceffarily fuppofes that
he was furnifhed with a flock of ideas ; a fpecimen of which he
gave in giving names to the inferior animals, which were brought
before him for that purpofe. The fixme gift of language was
imparted to the confort provided for him ; and they both were
admitted in feveral inftances to a near intercourfe with their
iVIaker, and were immediately favoured with notions of feveral
things which it concerned them to know. It plcjfcd God to ac-
quaint them with tiie dominion he had inverted thera with over
the feveral creatures in thi^ lower wmlJ : they bad a divide
allowance
2 2 The principal HccjJs of Mcral La-v) male known Part II.
allowance and diicdions as to the food it was proper for them to
eat: they were inftiucftcd that they were to be the parents of a
numerous offspring, asid that they weie to repknilh the earth.
The inftitution and law of marriage, which was given them,
fliews that they were made acquainted with the duties of the con-
jugal relation ; with which are nearly conneded the duties required
of them as parents towards the children which fliould proceed
from them, and the duties which their children fliould render to
them, and to one another. As God gave them the law of the
Sabbath, we may well conclude that he diredled them as to the
proper way of fandifying it by worfliipping him the great Creator
and Lord of the univerfe, and celebrating his glory as fliining
forth in the creation of the world, of which the Sabbath was de-
ligned to keep up a religious remembrance. The precept and
injundion which was laid upon them not to eat the forbidden
fruit, comprehended a confiderablc part of the moral law under it.
It was defigned to inftrud them that they were not the abfolute
lords of this lower world, but were under the dominion of an
higher Lord, to whom they owed the moft entire fubjecftion, and
unreferved obedience, in an implicit refignation to his fupremc
wifdom and goodnefs : that they were bound to exercil'e a go-
vernment over their appetites and inclinations, and not to place
their higheft happincfs in the gratification of them ; and that they
were not only to govern their bodily appetites, but to guard againft
an inordinate ambition, and to reftrain their defircs of knowledge
within jufl: bounds, without prying with an unwarrantable cu-
riofity into things which God thought fit to conceal from them.
Upon the whole, we may juftly conclude, that tlic firft parents
of
Chap. II. to Man in the Beginning by Divine Revelation, 23
of the human race had the knowledge of God, and of the main
articles of their duty divinely communicated to them, as far as
was proper, and fuited to the flate and circumflances they were
in (/•).
After the fall and difobedience of our fiift parents, new duties
arofe fuited to the alteration of their circumflances. They were
now to regard God as their offended Sovereign and Lord : difco-
veries were made to them both of his juftice and righteous dif-
pleafure againft fin, and of his placablenefs towards penitent
finners, and his pardoning mercy ; without an afTurance of which
they might have funk under thofe defponding fears which a con-
fcioufnefs of their guilt was apt to infpire. Repentance towards
God, a fubmifTion to his juflice in the punifliment inflifted upon
them for their difobedience, hope in his mercy, and a reliance on
the promife he was gracioufly pleafed to make to them, a fear of
offending him for the future, and a dcfire of approving themfelves
to him by a new and dutiful obedience; thefe were difpofitions
which it was the will of God they fhould exercife. And as they
flood in great need of a divine diredion in thofe circumflances,
(/■) Puffl-ndorf, who mud be acknowledgctl to be a very able judge in what
relates to the law of nature, declares, in a pafTage I cited before, that " it is very
" probable, that God taught the firft men the chief heads of natural law, which
" were afterwards prcferved and fpread among their defcendants by means of edii-
" cation and ciiftom." He adds, that this does not hinder, but that the know-
ledge of them may be called natural, inafmuch as the truth and certainty of them
may be difcovtrcd in a way of reafoning,
Grorius alfo gives it as his opinion, that the law was oiiginalty promulgated to
Adam, the father of mankind, and throut^h him to the human race ; and again to
Noah, the fccond father of mankind, and by him tranfmittcd to his defcendants.
it
z^ The principal Heads oj Moral La-w made knoivn Part II.
it is reaforablc to think that he fignified his will to them in rela-
tion to tlvciv iiiture conduct, and the religion required of fallen
creatures. T^:e hiflory which Moles has j^lvcn of the antedilu-
vian world is very fl)ort: but in the account given of Cain and
Abel it is plii.ily intimated, that there was in thofe early ages an
intercourfe between God and man, tliat he did not leave them
without discoveries of his will, that a law had been given them
with relation to the external worfliip of God, and particularly con-
cerning the offering of facrifice. Accordingly they both obfcrvcd
it as an a6t of religion ; but Abel, who was a better man, with a
more pious difpofition than Cain. He is faid, by the facred writer
to the Hebrews, to have offered facrifice by faith, which feems
plainly to refer to a divine inftitution and appointment; and that
he well knew it was a rite which God required, and would accept.
And its having fpread fo univerfally, among all nations from the
moft antient times, can fcarce be accounted for but by fuppofing it
to have been a part of Religion tranfmitted from the firfl ages to
die whole race of mankind (i). What was faid to Cain, and the
curfe inflidled upon him, fuppofed a divine law obliging to mutual
love and benevolence, and of which the violence committed on
his brother was a manifefl breach. There were in the old world
preachers of Righteoufnefs, who, we have reafon to think, de-
clared the will and law of God to men, and urged it upon them
in his name, and by his authority, So Noah is called, z Pet.
(j) The reader may compare what is here faid with the firft chapter of the
former vohunc, in which fcveral of the tilings here mentioned are more fully in-
fifted upon ; but it was neccfFary to t.ike fome notice of them in this place, to flicw
that God from the bejini»ing made difcoverics of his will to meu conccraiof^ their
duty.
7 '"• i-
Chap. II. toManin the Beginning by Divine Revelation. 25
ii. 5. and fuch was that excellent perfon Enoch, and probably fe-
veral others. To which it may be added, that if God had not
made exprefs difcoveries of his will to men, and given them laws
bound upon them by his own Divine Authority, their guilt would
not have been fo highly aggravated as to draw down upon them fo
dreadful a ruin and condemnation. But they finned prefumptu-
oufly, and with a high hand: they allowed themfelves in an un-
reftrained indulgence of their lufts and appetites, and committed
all forts of violence, rapine, and wickednefs, in the moft mani-
felt oppofition to the divine law. They feem to have fallen into
an atheiftical negledt and contempt of all religion ; and therefore
are juftly called " the world of the ungodly," 2 Pet. ii. f. And
the prophecy of Enoch, mentioned by St. Jude, fcems particu-
larly to charge them with the moft audacious profanenels, and
open contempt of Religion, both in their words and adions, tor
which the divine judgments were denounced againll them.
Noah, with his family, wlio furvived that deflru6lion, was no
doubt well acquainted with thofe divine laws, for the tranfgrefTion
of which the finners of the old world were fo feverely puniflied j
and a man of his excellent charader, we may be fure, took care
to tranfmit them to his children and defcendants : and the awful
proofs of the divine juftice and difpleafure againrt: the wicked and
difobedient, tended to give the inftrudions and admonitions de-
livered to them by this preacher of Righteoufnefs a peculiar force.
It appears from tlie brief hints given by Mofes, that God made
renewed difcoveries of his will after the flood to this fccond father
of mankind, and gave laws and injundions which were dcfigned
Vol. II. E to
z6 TLe principal Heads of Moral Laxv7nade knov)n Part II.
to be obligatory on the whole human race. The tradition of the
Jews relating to the precepts delivered to the fons of Noah is
well known. And though we have not fufficient proof, that
they were prccifcly in number or order what they pretend, yet
that the fubftance of thofe precepts was then given and promul-
gated to mankind by Divine Authority, there is good reafon to be-
lieve. And confidering the narrownefs of the Jewifli notions, their
ilrong prejudices againft the Gentiles, and the contempt they had
for them, this tradition of theirs dcferves a particular regard. For it
ihews, that it v/as an antient tradition among them, derived from
their anceftors, that God was the God not of the Jews ojily but
alfo of the Gentiles ; that he had not entirely cad the Gentiles off"
from the beginning, without making difcoverics of his will to
them concerning religion, and their moral duty; but had given
them laws, upon the obfervance of which they were in a itate
of favour and acceptance with God (/"). The moral laws which
were afterwards publiflied to the people of IlVael, a fummary of
which is contained in the ten commandments, were in fubrtance
[t) In the Tiilmudkal books mention is made of " the pious among the nations
" of the world," and a portion is afligned to them, as well as to the Ifraelites, in
the world to come. Agreeably to this determination, Maimonides pofitiveiy allerts,
•hat the pious among the Gentiles have a portion in the world to come, De Poeniu
cap. 3. i. e. as it is there explained, thofe that obferved the precepts given to the
fons of Noah ; by whom they imderftood all mankind. Sec alfo Gemar. Babylon,
ad titul. Aboda Zara. Gip. i. MenaiTeh Ben Ifrael de Rofur. Mort. lib. ii. cip. 8
et 9. Thefe, with other teftimonies, are cited by Scldcn de Jure Nat. et Gent.
Kb. vij. cap. 10. p. 877. edit. Lipf. The paflage there quoted by him from the
Gemara Babylonica ad titul. Aboda Zara, is remarkable ; which he tranllates thus^
*' etiam Pag^num, qui diligenter legem obfervavcrit, veluti PontiHcem Maximum
" habendum:" i. c. as Mr. Scldcn explains it, " later prim.irios Ebraorum,
•* q^uaotum ad pr^miiun atticct, ccufcnduxn."
7 kuQwa
Chap. II. to Man in the Beginning by hiiiine Uevelation. 2 J
known before in the patriarchal times. And thefe divine in-
jundlions, which were regarded as having been given by God to
men, and enforced by a Divine Authority, may jullly be fup-
pofed to be referred to in that remarlcable paflage, Gen. xviii. 19.
v.here God faith concerning Abraham, " I icnow him, that he
" will command his children and his houfliold after him, and
" they fhall keep the way of the Lord to do juflice and judg-
*' ment." And no doubt that great patriarch did what God knew
and declared he would do : and from him proceeded many and
great nations. If we examine the antient book of Job, who de-
fcended from Abraham, and lived before the promulgation of the
Mofaic law, we lliall find that there is fcarce any one of the moral
precepts, which were afterwards publiflied to the people of Ifrael,
but what may be traced in the difcourfcs of that excellent man
and his friends, and which are there reprefented as having been
derived by tradition from the mofl antient times (?/).
(«) Grotius mentions fome inftitutions and cuftoms common to all men, .md
which cannot be fo properly afcribed to an inflin(5l of nature, or the evident con-
clufions of reafon, as to a perpetual and almoft uninterrupted tradition from the
firft ages, fuch as tiie flaying and offering up of faciifices, the pudor circa res
venereas, the folemniiies of marriage, the abhorrence of inccftuous copulations.
De Vcrit. Relig. Chrift. lib. i. fe(ft. 7. See alfo De Jur. Bel. et Pac. lib. ii. cap. 5.
fcift. 13. And Mr. Le Clerc, though fond of the hypothefis. that many of the
Mofaic rites were inftituted in imitation of thofe of the Egyptian-!, yet, fpeaking
of the offering of the Hrfl-fruits to God, which was in ufe both among the Egyptians
and the Hebrews, fays, that it was not derived from the one of thefe nations to
the other, but came to both from the earliefb ages, and probably was originally of
divine appointment. And he add?, that p>crliaps from the fame fource many
other ufages among both thofe people were dcrivsJ, Sic Cleric. Commcntar. La
Pcntat. in his notes on Levit. xxlii. 10.
E 2 After
28 A great deal -was done for the Heathen Nations Part II.
After the deluge, it is probable that the heads and leaders of
the difperfion, carried with them feme of the main principles,
both of religion and law, into the feveral places where they re-
fpedively fettled : from whom they were tranfmitted to their de-
fcendants. For in thofe early ages, as Plato' obfcrves, in the be-
ginning of his third book of Laws, the people were wont to
follow the laws and cuftoms of their parents and anceftors, and
of the moll anticnt men among them. It ftrengthens this, when
it is confidered, that the mofl important moral maxims were de-
hvered in the earlieft times, not in a way of reafoning, as they
were afterwards by the moralifi: in the ages of learning and phi-
lofophy> but in a way of authority, as principles derived from the
antients, and which were regarded as of a divine original. It
was a notion which generally obtained among the Heathens, that
tlie original of law was from God, and tliat it derived its obliging
force from a Divine Authority. The leari^.ed Selden has colleded
many teftimonies to this purpofc from poets, philofophers, and
other celebrated Pagan writers {x). It is probable that this notion
was owing not only to the belief which obtained among them of
a divine fupcrintending providence, but to the traditionary ac-
counts they had of God's having given laws to tiie firfi: men in
the mod anticnt times. And (o ftrongly was a fenfe of this im-
preflcd upon the minds of the people, that it belonged to the
Divinity to give laws to mankind, that the mofl: antient legiflators,
in order to give their laws a proper weight and authority, found
it neceffary to perfuade them that thefe laws were not merely of
(x) De Jure Nat. ct Gent. lib. i. c.np. 8. p. 94. et feq. edit. Lipf.
tlicir
Chap. 1 1, to lead them to the right Kno-ivledge of Moral Duty. 2 p
their own contriving, but were what they had received from the
gods. And it is probable, that they took Ibme of the chief heads
of nioral law, which had been handed down by antient tradi-
tion, into the laws of their refpedive flates and civil communi-
ties, efpecially as far as they tended to the prefervation of the
public order and good of the fociety. It was in the eaflern coun-
tries, where men firil fettled after the floot^, that civil politics
were firft formed : there they were near the fountain-head of an-
tient tradition, and there the greatetl remains of it were pre-
ferved (>■). And from thence the legiflators in Greece and Italy,
and the weftern parts, principally derived their laws.
It appears from the account which hath been given, that a
great deal had been done, in the courfe of the Divine Providence,
for leading men into the knowledge of their duty. God had
given laws to mankind from the beginning, and made exprefs
difcoveries of his Will to the firft parents and anceftcrs of the
human race, concerning the principal points of duty required of
(_y) " The eaftern fages were famous for their excellent moral maxims, derived
" by tradition from the mod antient times. This is obfervable conccraing the
" aatlent wife men among thePerfians, Babylonians, DKftrians, Indians, Egyptians.
" That celebrated Chinefe philofupher and moriUift Confucius, did not pretend
" himfelf to be the author of the moral precepts he delivered, but to have derived
" them from wife men of mucii greater antiquity : particularly from Pung, who'
" lived near a thoufand years before him, and who alfo profeffed to follow the doc-
" trine of the anticnts ; and tfpecuUy from Tao and Xun, two eminent Ciiincfc Ic-
" giflators, who, according to the Chinefe chronology, lived above 1500 years be-
" fore Confucius. Or, if we (hould fuppofe their chronology not to be cxaft, yet rtill'
" it would follow, that the knowledge of morals was derived to them from the ear-
" lieftages, when philofbphy and the fiicucos had made but fmall proijrefs." Sec
Navaretii'si Hlil. of Clun.i, p. 123. fviul Scientia Siaeniis Latine cxpofita, p- 120,.
thcni-
;o j1 great deal teas doiiejor the Heathen Nations Part II.
them. They were bound by his authority, and by all manner of
obligations, to tranfmit the knowledge of them to their defcendants.
And this was the more eafily done, as they were agreeable to the
befl moral fentiments of the human heart, and to the dictates of rea-
fon, which, if duly exercifed, might fee them to be conformable
to the nature and relations of things. To which it maybe added,
that the good tendency of them was confirmed by obfervation and
experience. And accordingly, the bulk of mankind, in all ages
and nations, have flill retained fuch notions of good and evil, as
have laid a foundation for the approbation and difapprobation of
their own minds and confciences. Taking all thefe things toge-
ther, the laws and precepts originally given by Divine Revelation,
the remains of which continued long among the Gentiles, the
moral fenfe of things implanted in the human heart, and tie
didlates of natural reafon and confcience, which were never utterly
extingui^lied in the Pagan world, together with the prefcriptions
of the civil laws, which in many inftances exhibited good di-
redlions for regulating the condudtj I fay, taking all thefe things
together, it muft be acknowledged, that the Pagans were not left
deftitutc of fuitable helps, which, if duly improved, might have
been of great ufe for leading them to the right knowledge and
pradice of moral duty {z). And undoubtedly there were eminent
examples
(2) St. Paul reprefents the Ccntilcs ns having the " work of the law written in
" their hearts." The cxpreflion is evidently metaphorical, and not to be pufheJ
too far. It is not defigned to fignify, as feme have underflood it, that all mankind
have the whole law of God, comprehending every part of moral duty, written in
plain charafters upon their hearts : for this would prove that all men have narur.illy
•T clear knowledge of the whole of their duty without lnrtrn<5lion : which is contrary
IQ
Chap. II. to lead them to the right Knowledge of Moral Duty. 3 \
examples among them of generofity, patience, fortitude, equani-
mity, a love of juftice, benevolence, gratitude, and other virtues.
In Greece and Rome, in their befl times, there feem to have
been fome hereditary notions, derived from their anceflors, and
cheriflied and confirmed by education and cuftom, of what is
virtuous, honourable, and praife-worthy, and the contrary ; which
had a great effecS: upon their condudl. But, after all, it cannot
be denied, that the notions of morality among them and the
other Pagans, were in many refpects greatly defedive, and de-
praved with corrupt mixtures.
to the raofl evident fa(^ and experience, and to what theapoflleelfewhere obferves
concerning the Gentiles. But though this could not be his meaning in this manner
of expreffion, yet it certainly fignifies, that the Gentiles, who had not the written
law in their hands, were not left entirely deftitute of a law. And when in any
inftances, they did fome of the things contained in the law (for they were far from
doing all things therein contained, as the apoftle proves) they (hewed that in thofe
inftauces tliey had the work of the law written in their hearts ; i. e. that they had
un inward fenfe of the Divine Law in fome of its important branches, fo as to lay a
foundation for the felf-approving or fclf-condemning reflccfllons of tiicir own minds,
and for their being judged by God on the account of them. This is evidently the
apolHe's intention in this paflage. And it muff be acknowledged, that there were
fcarce any of the Heathens, even in times of their greatcft degeneracy, but had in
fome refpeffs the work of the law written in their hearts, i. e. fome inward fenfc
of right and wrong, of good and evil \ to which their confciences bore witnefs :
though undoubtedly this {tn^z of moral duty w;\s in fome of them far clearer and of
greater extent than io others, and in all of them vaAly fltort of what we enjoj-,
w ho have the benefit of the Chriftian Revelation. The apoAle, fpeaking of the
Gentiles at the time of the publication of the Gofpel, reprefents them as amazingly
corrupted, even in their moral notions of things. He gives it as their general cha-
laOer, that they " had their undeiflandings darkened, being alienated from the
" life of God through the ignorance that was in them, becaufe of the blindnefs ot"
*' their hearts." And then he goes on to fhcw the happy change that was wrought
in thofe of them who were " taught the truth as it is in Jefus," Eph. iv. 17, i <{,
ly, zo, 21, &c.
52 Idolatry had a Ixid Eff^ tn co'rrupfing Part. II.
As they fell from the right knowledge of the one true God,
which, as a learned author {a), who is a warm advocate for the
Morality of the Pagans, obfcrves, is " the great foundation of
" morality, " they fell alfo from a juft knowledge of moral duty
in very important inftunccs. Idolatry not only introduced a great
corruption into the worfliip of God, and all that part of duty
■which immediately rclateth to the Supreme Being, but alio into
their moral conduil in other refpedls. Efpecially, when the
worfiiip of hero deities became general, many of whom gave
examples of vicious conduct, the worfliip of fuch gods naturally
tended to corrupt their moral notions and fcntiments, and to make
them very loofe and dlflblute in their practice : to which may be
added bad and immoral cuftoms, owing to various caufcs. And
in many places their civil laws, though they were of ufe to their
morals in fevcral inflances, yet led them aftray in others. And
even their wife men and philofophers frequently advanced notions
inconfiftent with the truth and purity of morals : of which full
proof will be given in the enfuing part of this treatife.
When idolatry and polythcifm began to fpread generally among
the nations, it pleafed God to feledl a peculiar people, among
whom a polity was ereded of an extraordinary kind; the funda-
mental principle of which was the knowledge and worlhip of
the one true God, and him only, in oppofuion to all idolatry. Pie
alfo gave them a code of holy and excellent laws, containing the
main articles of the duty which God requires of men, in pl.iin
(a) Sykes's Conncft. and Principles of NaturiU and Revealed Religion, p. 364.
and
Chap. II. their Moraf Notions (r?ut FraSiicei, jj
and exprefs precepts. The moral laws obligatory on all man-
kind were fummarily comprehended in the Ten Commandments,
which were promulgated by God himfelf with a moft amazing
folemnity at mount Sinai, and written in the two tables of ftone,
to be a Handing law to that people. They were not left to them-
felves, to work out a fyftem of moral duty merely by their own
reafon^ Even fuch things as feemed moft plain to the common
fenfe of mankind, as the precepts prefcribing the honouring our
parents, and forbidding to kill, fteal, and commit adultery, were
bound upon them by exprefs laws from God himfelf, and enforced
by his own Divine Authority. And he commanded them to be
very affiduous and diligent in teaching thofe laws to their children,
and inftrudling them in the particulars of the duty which God
required of them [b). And it is very probable, that the fame of
their laws, and the glorious proofs of a Divine Authority by which
they were enforced, was fpread abroad among the nations. This
feems to be plainly fignified in what Mofes declares to the people
of Ifrael, when fpeaking of the ftatutes and judgments which the
Lord commanded them, he faith, " Know therefore, and do
" them ; for this is your wifdom and your underftanding, in the
" fight of the nations, which fhall hear all thefe ftatutes, and
" fay, Surely this great nation is a wife and underftanding people."
He adds, " And what nation is there fo great that hath ftatutes
" and judgments fo righteous as all this law which I fet before
" you this day [c) ?" It may reafonably be fuppofed, that as the
(A) Deut. vi. 6, 7,
(f) Ibid. iv. 6. 7, 3.
Vol. II. F repatatioa
3+ The Laiv givcJi to the PeopfF of Ifracl of Vfe Part II.
reputation of Mofes as a lawgiver was very high among the na-
tions, his laws'might, in feveral inftances, ferve as a pattern to
otlicr lawgivers, who might borrow fome of the Mofaic precepts
and inftitutions. Artapanus, as cited bv Eufcbius, probably fpeaks
the fentiments of many other Heathens, when he fo highly extols
the wifdom of Mofes and his laws, and faith, that he delivered
many things very ufeful to mankind, and tiiat from him the
Egyptians themfelves borrowed many inftitutions {d). This might
be true in feveral inftances, though he is miftakcn in thofe he
particularly mentions. Many learned men have obferved a great
affinity between fome of the laws cnadted in Athens and other
ftates, and thofe of Mofes, who publiflied his laws before the
moft antient legillators that we know of publilhcd theirs. And
there is good reafon to believe, tl^it tlic Mofaic laws were the
iirft laws that were ever committed to writing.
But though it is probable the laws given by Mofes, in the name
of God himfclf, were of advantage, in many inftances, to pre-
ferve the fenfe and knowledge of moral duty among the nations,
yet as thofe laws were in a fpecial manner delivered to one parti-
cular nation, who were for wife ends kept feparatc by fome peculiar
ufages from other people, they were not lo well fitted for univcrfal
ufe. It pleafed God, therefore, at the time which feemed moft
fit to his infinite wifdom, in compairion to the wretched ftate of
piankind, after having exercifed long patience and forbearance
towards them, to make a new Revelation of his Will, which
{d) Eufcb. Pracp. Evangel, lib. ix. cap. 27. p. 432.
was
Chap. II. to pre ferve the Kno-wledge of Moral Duty. ^^
was commanded to be published to all nations, in which their
duty is fet before them in its juft extent, enforced by God's own
exprefs authority, and by fuch arguments and motives, as are
moft proper to work upon the mind. This Revelation and fyftem
of Divine Laws is brought us by the moft illuftrious meflenger that
could be fent for that purpofe, the Son of God in human fle(h.
His Divine Miffion was confirmed by the moft convincing attefta-
tions ; and he hath alfo exemplified to us the Divine Law in all
its purity and excellency, in his own Sacred Life and Pradlice,
and hath provided the moft gracious afliftances to help our in-
firmities, that we may be the better enabled to perform the duties
required of us. And what great need the world ftood in of fuch.
a Revelation, and confequently how thankful wc fliould be for fo:
great a bleffing, is what I now proceed diftindly to ftiew.
Fa CHAP
j4f An Enquiry into the State of Morality Part II.
CHAP. III.
A particular enquiry into the /late of morality in the Heathen
•world. A complete rule of morals, taken in its jufi extent^
comprehends the duties relating to God^ our neighbours, and
ourfehes. If the Heathens had fuch a rule among them, it
would appear either in the precepts of their religion, or in the
prefcriptions of their civil laivs, or cufloms 'which have the force
of laws, or in the do&rines and inftr unions of their philofophers
and tnoralifs. It is propofed diJlinElly to confider each of thefe.
As to what pa[fed among them for religion, morality did not
properly make any part of it, nor was it the office of their priefls
to teach men virtue. As to the civil laws and conftitutions,
fuppofmg them to have been never fo proper for civil government,
they were not fitted to be an adequate rule of morals. The befl
of them were, in feveral refpeSls, greatly defeSlive. Various
infiances produced of civil laws, and of cufloms which had the
force of laws, among the mofi civilized nations, efpecially among
the ant lent Egyptians and Greeks, which were contrary to the
rules of morality.
MORAL duty, taken in its jufl extent, is uAially and iiillly
divided into three main branches. The firft relates to tlic
duties of piety we more immediately owe to God, which incKides
the rendering him tliat rehgious worfhip and adoration, that love
and reverence, that trufl and affiance, tiiat uiirelerved rubmilTion,
refignation,
+
Chap. III. in the Heathen World. 37
refignation, and obedience, which is due to him from his reafon-
able creaturesi. The fecpiid relates to the duties we owe to our
neighbours, or to mankind, which takes jp all that is comprehended
in the exercife of juftice, charity, mercy, benevolence, fidelity
towards our fellow-creatures, and all the various offices and virtues
of the focial life. The third relates more immediately to ourfelves,
and includes dl the duties of (elf-gpvernment, the keeping our
appetites and paflions under proper regulations, and maintaining
a purity of body and fqul, and whatfoever tends to the right or-
dering of our own ternper, and to the attaining the true reditude
and perfection of our nature. That cannot be faid to be an ade-
quate rule of moral duty, which does not extend to all thefe,
with fufficient authority, clearnefs, and certainty. By this let us
examine the flate of morality in the Heathen world : and, upon
an impartial enquiry, we (hall find, that though that part of
moral law, which relates to civil duty and focial virtue, was for
the mort; part preferved, as far as was neceffary to the peace and
order of fociety ; yet as to the other branches of duty, that which
relates to the duties we more immediately owe to God, and that
wliich relates to felf-government and purity, it was through the
corruption of mankind greatly perverted and depraved. If the
Heathens had among them a complete and fettled rule of moral \
duty in its jufl: extent, it muft be found either in the precepts of
their Religion, and inftrudions of its Minifters, or in the pre-
fcriptions of the civil laws and the inftitutions of the magiftratcs,
or in cuftpms that had the force of laws, or laflly, in the dodtrincs
and maxims of their philofophcrs and moralifls.
There
38 Morality made no proper Part Part II.
There needs not much be faid as to the firft of thefe. Reli-
gionj when it is of the right kind, and confidered in its moft
comprehenfive notion, takes in the whole of moral duty, as ne-
ceflarily belonging to it, and' both prefcribes it in its juft extent,
and enforces it by the higheft authority, that of God himfelf,
and by the moft important motives. But in this the Heathen
Religion was very defeftive. There were indeed fome general
principles of Religion, which were in fome meafure preferved
among the Pagan nations, and never were entirely extinguirtied,
relating to the exiftence and attributes of the Deity, and to a
Providence exercifing an infpedion over human actions and affairs,
and rewarding the virtuous and punifliing the wicked. The no-
tions of thefe things, though attended with much obfcurity, and
perverted and debafed with many corrupt mixtures, yet had a
good effedl in laying reftraints upon vice and wickednefs, and
encouraging virtue, and keeping up the face of order among the
people} and were actually made ufe of by the wifcll: and ablcft
legiflators for that purpofe. But what pafled for religion among
the Pagans, and was eftabliHicd by their laws, and adminiftreci
by their priefts, neither taught any fcheme of doftrines neceflary
to be believed, nor held forth a code of laws or rule of moral duty
for regulating and direding the pradtice. It confifted properly
in the public rites and ceremonies to be obferved in the worfhip
of their deities. " The priefts (as Mr. Locke obftrves) made it
•' not their bufincfs to teach men vircue (c)." Their office was,
accoi diner
o
(e) To the fame purpofe Laftanthis obfcrvcs, that thofc who taiijiht the woifliip
of the goJs, g.ive no dii c<5\ions as to what related to the regiihition of men's m.-.nnerf ,
and
Chap. "III. of the Heathen Religion. 35)
according to the account Varro gives of it, to hiftrud men what
gods they were to worfhip, what facrifices they were to offer to
their feveral deities, and to diredl them in what manner they were
to obferve the appointed rites. It is true, that Cicero, in his
Oratio pro domo fua ad Pontifices, reprefents them as having a
general infpedlion over the manners of the citizens : but this they
did not properly as priefts of religion, but as minifters of the ftate.
For in the Roman government, the fame perfons aded in both
capacities, and the priefthood was fo modelled as to anfwer the
civil and political views of the commonwealth. It is a juft obfer-
vation of the Baron Puffendorf, that "What the Romans called
" Religion was chiefly inftituted for the benefit of the ftate, that
" they might be the better able to rule the minds of the people,
" according to the conveniences and exigences of the public." He
adds, That " there were no certain heads or articles of religion
" among the Romans, whence the people might be inftrudled
" concerning the Being and Will of God, or how they ought to
" regulate their pradice and adlions fo aS to pleafe God (/)."
Thofe who were diligent in the obfervation of the facred cuftomary
rites, and worfhipped the gods according to the laws, were looked
upon as having fulfilled the duties of religion. But no farthw
regard was had to their morals, than as the intereft of the ft^te
and to the conduft of life. " Nihil ibi difTeritur, quod proficiat .id mores ex-
" colendos, vitamque foimandam." And that ainong the Pagans, philofophy [or
The doiflrine of morals] and the religion of the gods, were entirely diftinft, and
icparatcd from one another. " Philofophia et relit'.io dcoium difjun(fla funt, Jonge-
■" que difcreta." Dirln. Inftit. Irb. iv. cap. 3. See aifo' Angiiftin. dc Civit. JDq,
lib. ii. cap. 4. 6 tt 7.
(/) Puffendorf 's Intro.lucT:. to the Hift. of Europe, chap.V.'-ftxT-'. 10. " '
4© Morality no proper Fart cj the Heathen Religion. Part II.
was concerned. If at any time the public was expofed to great
calamities, and it was thought neceflary to appeafe the gods, and
avert their difpleafure, repentance and a reformation of manners
was never prefcribed by the priefts, as one of the means appointed
by religion for that purpofe : but they had recourfe on fuch occa-
lions to fome odd and trifling ceremony j fuch as the didator's
llriking a nail into a door, or fomething of the like nature {g).
So far was the Heathen religion, and the worfliip of their deities,
from giving men a right notion of morality, or engaging them to
the practice of it, that in many inftances the rites made ufe of in
the worfliip of their gods \Vere of an immoral nature, and inftead
of promoting the pradlice of virtue, had a tendency to encourage
vice and licentioufnefs. This fufliciently appears from the inflances
produced in the former volume, chap. vii. To the inftances there
mentioned, I now add, what a very learned writer has obferved,
that Ariftotle, in his Politics, " having Wamcd all lewd and ob-
*' fcene images and piftures, excepts thofe of the gods, whicli
" religion has fandified=(Z))."
It appears then, that if a complete rule of morals was to be
Tound among the the Pagans, we muft not look for it in their
religioii, but either in the civil laws and conftitutions, and cuftoms
which obtained the force of laws, or in the dodrines and precept*;
of the philofophers and moralifts.
(^) Hume's Nat. Hiftory of Religion, p- 105- I^'V. Lcg.ition of Mofts, vol. I.
p. p7. edit. 4th.
(A) Ibid. p. 154.
Many
Chap. III. Civil Laics and Cujloms of the Heathens confidered. 41
Many have fpoke with admiration of the ci\ril laws and conftl-
tutions, which were in force among the Pagan nations, as if they
were fufficient to dired and regulate their moral condud. Some
of the mofl eminent of the antient philofophers feem to refolve the
whole duty of a good man into obedience to the laws of his coun-
try. Socrates defines the jufl man to be one that obeys the laws of
the republic, and that he becomes unjufi: by tranfgrefling them (/).
And Xenophon accordingly obfervcs, that that philofopher was ia
all things for adhering clofely and inviolably to the laws, both
publicly and privately, and exhorted all men to do fo {k). And
many paflages might be produced to fhew, that both he and Plato,
and the philofophers in general, urged it as the duty of the ci-
tizens to make the laws of their country the rule of their pradlicc,
both in religious and civil matters. Some modern authors have
talked in the fame flrain, and have laid the chief ftrefs on human
laws and government, as giving the beft diredlions, and fur-
niftiing the moft efFedtual means, for the fecuring and improving
the moral ftate (/). It cannot be denied, that there were many
excellent laws and conftitutions among the Heathen nations, and
which were of great ufe in regulating the manners of men, and
preferving good order in fociety : but it is no hard matter to prove,
that the civil laws of any community are ver}' imperfedl meafures
(/) Xenopli. Memor. Socr. lib. iv. cap. 4. fcft. 13.
(*) Ibid. lib. i. fe<ft. i, 2, et feq.
(/) Lord Bolinghroke's Works, Vol. V. p. 480, 481. edit. 410. This alfo is
the fche'me of the author of the book De I'Efprit, who makes the la<v of the Ifatc
to be the only rule and mcafurc of virtue and due}', and what he calls a good Ic-
jjiflation to be the only means of promoting it.
Vol. II. G of
4.2 Civil Laias no adequate Rule of Morals. Part 11.
of moral duty. A man may obey thofc laws, and yet be far from
being truly virtuous : he may not be obnoxious to the penalties of
thofe laws, and yet be a vicious and bad man. Nor indeed is it the
proper defign of thofe laws to render men really and inwardly
virtuous, but fo to govern their outward behaviour, as to maintain
public order. The higheft end they propofe is the temporal wel-
fare and profperjty of the ftate. The heart, the proper feat of
virtue and vice, is not within the cognizance of civil laws and
human governments. Nor can the fandlions of thofe laws, or any
rewards and punifliments which the ableft human legiflators can
contrive, be ever applied to enforce the whole of moral duty.
They cannot reach to the inward temper, or the fccret affcdious
and difpofitions of the foul, and intentions of the will, on which
yet the morality of human adions, or their being good and evil
in the fight of God, does principally depend. Seneca fays very
well, that " it is a narrow notion of innocence to meafurc a man's
" goodnefs only by the law. Of how much larger extent is the
" rule of duty or of good offices, than that of legal right ? How
** many things are there which piety, humanity, liberality, ju-
" ftice, fidelity require, which yet are not within the compafs of
" the public flatutes ? — Quum angufta innocentia eft ad legem
" bonum efle ? Quanto latius officiorum patet quam juris regula ?
" Quam multa pietas, humanitas, liberalitas, juftitia, fides cxi-
" gunt, qux omnia extra publicas tabulas funt [m) ?"
But
(ni) Sen. de Ira. liS. ii. cnp. 27. The learned bifhop of Clouccftcr has ftt this
m.itter in a very citar light, in his Divine Legation of Mofes, vol. I. book i. ftft. 2.
p. 13, et fcq. where he (Ikws, that the laws of civil focicty, alone confulci-ed, are
infufHcicnt
Chap. III. Concerning the Egyptian Laivs u?id Cufloms. 43
But let us more particularly enquire into the mofl celebrated
civil laws and inftitutions among thofe that have been accounted
the moft civilized and beft political nations.
The Egyptians were antiently much admired for the wifdom
of their laws, which were looked upon to be well fitted for the
maintenance of public order : but they were far from furnifliing
adequate rules of virtue, and were, in fome refpedls, greatly de-
ficient. There is a paflage of Porphyry, which has been thought
to give an advantageous idea of the Egyptian morality. He ir^-
forms us, that when they embalmed the body of any of the nobles,
they were wont to take out the belly, and put it into a chefl ;
and then holding up the chefl towards the fun, one of the em-
balmers made an oration or fpeech in the name of the defundl
perfon ; which contained the dead man's apology for himfelf, and
the righteoufnefs on the account of which he prayed to be ad-
mitted to the fellowfliip of the eternal gods. " O Lord the Sun,
" and all ye gods that give life to men, receive me, and admit me
" to the fellowfhip of the eternal gods : for whilft I lived in the
" world, I religioufly worfhipped the gods which my parents
" {hewed me : thofe that generated my body I always honoured :
" I neither killed any man, nor fraudulently took away any thing
" that was committed to my trufl ; nor have I been guilty of any
infufficient to prevent or cure mornl difordcrs ; that they can have no further effi-
cacy than to reftrain men from open tranfgrenions ; nor can their influence be ex-
tended thus far in all cafes ; efpecially where the irregularity is owing to the violence
of the fenfual paflions : they alfo overlook what arc called the duties of impcrfcift
obligation, fuch as gratitude, hofpitulity, charity, &c. though tliefc duties .arc of
confiderable importance in the moral charaifter.
G a " other
44 Co7icerni}!g the Egyptian Laivs and Cnfloms, Part II.
" other very heinous or inexpiable wickednefs : if in my Hfe-time
" I offended in eating or drinking any of the things which it was
" not lawful for me to eat or drink ; the offence was not com-
" mitted by myfelf, but by thefe j" pointing to the cheft, which
contained his belly and entrails, and which was then thrown into
the river : after which, the rcfl of the body was embalmed as
pure. Porphyry cites for this Euphantus, who tranflated this
prayer or oration out of the Egyptian tongue («). This may fcem
to have been well contrived to point out the moft eminent parts
of a virtuous life and charadler, which tended to recommend a
man to the divine favour. But it is to be obferved, that the fun
is here addrefTed to as the Supreme Lord, together with other
gods, who are reprefented as the authors a4id givers of life : and
that the firfl and principal thing here mentioned as a proof of the
perfon's pietv is, his having worfliipped the gods which liis parents
had fliewn him. And what kind of deities they were which the
Egyptians worfliipped is generally known. So that tliey were
wrong with refpedl to the fundamental principle of morality, the
knowledge and worfliip of the one true God. A late learned and
ingenious author has fliewn, that though the Egyptians had fbmc
very good conflitutions, there reigned in their government a multi-
tude of abufes and effential defeats, authorized by their laws, and
the fundamental principles of their flate. There were great inde-
cencies and impurities in many of their public effabliflied rites
and ceremonies of religion. It was permitted among them for
brothers and fifters to marry one another. There is a law of
(/.) Porpli. de Abfcon. lib. iv. k(\. lo.
6 their?,
Chap. III. Concerning the Gracian Laws and Cujlomu ^j,
theirs, mentioned by Diodorus Siculus, lib. i. cap. 9. p. 6p. edit.
Amft. and by Aulus Gellius, lib. ii. cap. 20. which, under pre-
tence of making it eafy for the citizens to recover what was flolen
from them, really encouraged and authorized theft : it not only
affiired the thieves of impunity, but of a reward, by giving them
the fourth part of the prize, upon their relloring that which they
had flolen (0). The fame author obferves, that the Egyptians
were univerfally cried out againft for their want of faith and
honefty, as he fliews from many teftimonies (/>). And Sextus^
Empiricus informs us, that among many of the Egyptians, for
women to proilitute themfelves was accounted evK?.sis, a glorious
or honourable thing (j).
It is univerfally acknowledged, that the Greeks were amongft
the moft knowing and civilized nations of antiquity. There the
mofl celebrated pbilolbphers and moralifts opened their fchools,
and among them learning, and the arts, eminently flouriflied.
Accordingly, they had a very high opinion of their own wifdom,
and looked upon the reft of the world as much inferior to them,
and to whom they gave the common title of Barbarians. Let us
fee therefore whether their laws and conftitutions bid fairer for
improvement in morals, than thofe of other nations. Some of their
wifeft men and legiflators travelled into Egypt, and other parts of
(7) De rOrigine des Loix, dcs Arts, &c. torn. I. liv. I. nrt. 4. p. 49, et
torn. III. p. 28. et p. 352. a la H:iye 1758.
(/) Ibid. p. 354.
(y) Pyrrh. Hj'potyp. lib. iii. cap. 2-1.
the
46 Tlje Graclan La%vs ajiil Cujlorn Part. II.
the eaft, to obferve their laws, and tranfpknt fuch as they mod
approved into their own. It has been already hinted, that the
learned have obferved a near affinity in fome remarkable inflances
between the antlent Attic laws, as alfo thofe of the twelve tables,
and thofe of Mofes (r) ; which makes it probable, that the laws
delivered to the Ifraelites, which were of a divine original, and
were of greater antiquity than any of the laws of the Graecian
ftates, were in feveral refpedls of great advantage to other nations.
Excellent laws and conftitutions there undoubtedly were in feveral
of the Grecian republics : but if the beft of them were feleded,
and formed into one code, they would be far from exhibiting a
complete rule of morals. They were all, like the laws of other
nations, fundamentally wrong in all that part of moral duty which
relates to the ferviee and adoration we owe to the one true God ;
and in feveral refpedls alfo in granting too great an indulgence to
the fenfual paflions, and in making fome important points of mo-
rality give way to what they looked upon to be the intereft of the
ftate.
The laws of Lycurgus have been highly celebrated both by
antients and moderns. Plutarch obferves, that this lawgiver was
pronounced by the oracle the Beloved of God, and rather a God
than a Man : that he ftands an undeniable proof, that a perfeft
(r) Sec Sam. Petit. Comment, in Leg. Attic, printed at Paris 1635. See alfo
Grot. In Matt. v. 28. et dc Verit. Rcl. Chiill. lib. i. feft 15. p. 28. edit. Cleric.
It is true, that Mr. Le Clerc, in a note which he has there added, fiippofes, after
Dr. Spenfcr, that both tiie Athenians and the Hebrews derived the laws Grotiiis re-
fers to from the Ef^yptians. But no authorities can be produced to flicw that the
Egyptians had fuch laws, but what are much poAcrior to the times of Mofcs.
wile
Chap. III. in many Injlances contrary to good Morals. 47
wife man is not a mere notion and chimera, as fome have thought,
and has obliged the world with a nation of philofophers. He
exprefles a high admiration of the Lacedaemonian inftitutions, as
excellently fitted to form men to the excercife of virtue, and
to maintain and prorrwte mutual love among the citizens. He
prefers them to the laws of all the other Grecian ftates, and ob-
fcrves, that all thofe who have written well of politics, as Plato,
Diogenes, Zeno, and others, have taken Lycurgus for their mo-
del : and that Arillotle himfclf highly extols him, as liaving de-
ferved even greater honours than the Spartans paid him, though
they offered facrifices to him as to a god {s). Many of the mo-
derns, and among others the celebrated Monf. de Montefquieu
profefTeth himfelf a great admirer of the laws of Lycurgus. He
obferves, that he promoted virtue by means which feemed con-
trary to it (/•). But I think there are feveral of his laws and infti-
tutions to which this obfervation cannot juftly be applied j and
which, inftead of promoting the pradlice of virtue, counter-
afted it in important inftances. Some of his admirers have ac-
knowledged, that his laws were all calculated to eftablifli a mili-
tary commonwealth, and that every thing was looked upon as juft,
which was thought to contribute to that end. Plato obferves, ia
his firft book of laws, that they were fitted rather to repder men
valiant than juft. Ariftotle makes the fame obfervation {u). And
{s) See Pl-Jtarcli"s Life of Lycurgiis, efpeci.illy at the latter end.
(t) L'Efprlt lies LoLx, vol. I. livre iv. ch. 6. p. 49, 50. edit. Ediiib.
(«) Arift. Politic, lib. ii. c.ip. 9. p. 331. et lib. vii. cap. 14. p. 443. Oper.
torn. II. edit, P.iris.
Plutarch
48 Ihe Grcvciiin Laii:s and Cujlonn Part II.
Plutarch owns, tliat fome perfons blamed the laws of Lye irgus
as well contrived to make men good foldiers, but very defective
in ci\'il juflicc and honefty. It appears from the teftim in of
feveral authors, as well as from fome remarkable fafts, that they
were for facrificing probity, and every other confideration, to what
they thought the good of the flatc required ; and judged every me-
thod lawful which might procure them fuccefs. The breach of
laith cofl them nothing. Herodotus fays, that they who were
acquainted with the genius of that people knew that their adions
v/cre generally contrary to their words, and that they could not
depend upon them in any matter (a). And though they were un-
doubtedly very brave, yet they valued a vicflory more which was
gained by deceit and guile, than one that was obtained by open
valour. How haughtily and cruelly, as well as perfidioully, did
they behave towards Athens and Thebes, and all tliofe whom tliey
thought it their interefl to opprefs !
Many of their laws and cufloms were contrary to humanitv.
And the rigour of their difcipline tended in feveral inllances to
f^ifle the fentiments of tendernefs and benevolence, of mercy and
companion, fo natural to the human breaft. I have in the former
part of this Work, chap. vii. taken notice of their cuflom of
whipping boys, even to death, at the altar of Diana Orthia. To
whicTi it may be added, that their young men and bovs were wont
to meet and fight with the utmoft: rage and fiercencfs on certain
■days of the year ; of which Cicero fays he himlclf wn-^ witnefs (j).
(a:) HcroJ. lib. ix. n. 51. Francof. 1605.
{y) Tufcul. Difput. lib. v. cap. 27. p. 401. tdit. r.iris.'
nut
chap. III. in many Jnftances contrary to good Morals, 4^
But nothing could exceed their cruelty to their flaves, the hclotes,
as they called them, who laboured the ground for them, and per-
formed all their works and manufadturcs. Thefe flaves could
have no juftice done them, whatey.^r infults or injuries they fuf-
fered. They were regarded as the flaves not merely of one par-
ticular mailer, but of the public, fo that every one might Injure
them with impunity. Not only did tli&y treat thcni in their ge-
neral conduct with great harfhnefs and infcilenc^, but it was part
of their policy to maifacre them, on feveral occafions, in cold
blood, and without provocation. Several authors have mentioned
their K^wTraa, fo called from their lying in ambufcade, in thickets
and clefts of the rocks, from which they ifl"ued out upon the helotes,
and killed all they met ; and fometimes they fet upon them in
the open day, and murdered the ablefl and fl:outefl: of them, as
they were at work in the fields. The defign of this was to pre-
vent their flaves from growhig too numerous or powerful, which
might endanger the flate. But, as M. de Montefquieu very pro-
perly oblerves, the danger was only owing to their cruel and un-
juft treatment of them ; whereas among the Athenians, who
treated their flaves with great gentlenefs, there is no infliance of
their proving troublefome or dangerous to the public (z). Plutarch
is loth to believe that this inhuman cuftom was inflituted by Ly-
curgus, though he does not deny that it was in ufe among the
Lacedaemonians. But Ariftotle fays, it was an inftitution of Ly-
curgus. And whoever duly confiders the fpirit of feveral of
his laws, will not think him incapable of it. And from the
(:) L'Efprit des LoIn, vol. I. liv. xv. chnp i6, p. 356, 357.
Vol. II. n ' fame
JO The Gracian Laios and Cujioms Part II.
fame cruel policy it was, that, as Thucydidcs informs us, they
deftroyed two thoufand of the helotes, whom they had armed,
when the exigences of the ftate required it, and who had fervcd
them bravely and faithfully in their wars.
Another inftance of the inhumanity of tlie laws of Lycurgus
was this. The father was obliged by the laws to bring his child to a
certain place appointed for that purpofe, to be examined by a com-
mittee of the men of that tribe to which he belonged. Their bufinefs
was carefully to view the infant, and if they found it deformed,
and of a bad conftitution, they caufed it to be cafl into a deep
cavern near the mountain Taygetus, as thinking it neither good
for the child itfelf, nor for the public, that it (hould be brought
up. Plutarch, who takes notice of this, pafles no cenfure upon
it. And he pronounces in general, at the conclufion of his life
of Lycurgus, that he could fee no injuflice, or want of equity, in
any of that lawgiver's inftitutions.
Many have taken notice of that conftitution of his, by which
the Spartan boys were trained up to dextrous thieving. They
were obliged to fteal their viduals, or be without them ; which
put them upon watching opportunities, and feizing what they
could lay their liands on. It behoved them to do this with dex-
terity and adivity ; for if they were taken in the fa(fl:, they were
• whipped moft unmercifully J not for ftealing, as SextusEmpiricus
obfcrvcs, but for being catchcd {a). This was defigned to fliarpen
(fl) Pyrrhon. Hypotyp. lib. iii. cnp. 24.
their
Chap. III. in many Injhinces conirary to good Morals. 51
their invention, and to exercife their agility and courage. . Some
authors, and among others, the celebrated, \\x. RoUin, in his An-
tient Hiflory, are of opinion, that this could not be callijd theft^
becaufe it was allowed by the ftate. Cut, I think, it cannot be
denied, that in this method the youth were early enured to arts
of rapine, and were taught to think there was no great hurt in
invading another man's property, and to form contrivances ior
tiiat purpofe.
Notwithftanding all the aufterity which appeared in the laws
of Lycurgus, there were fome of his conftitutions, which feemed
to be very little confident with modefty and decency. There
were common baths in which the men and women bathed to-
gether. And it was ordered, that the young maidens fhould ap-
pear naked in the public exercifes, as well as the young men,
and that they fliould dance naked with them at the folemn feflivals
and facrifices (b) : and as to the married women, Lycurgus
allowed
{b) That eminent philofopher Plato, ia forming the model of a perfeft common-
wealth, propofed the laws of Lycurgus, in this and other inftances, for his pattern,
as I (hall have occafion to obfcrve afterwards. Thus neither the pliilofopher nor law-
giver fhewed any great regard to the rules of modefty and purity. A remarkable proof
this, that thegreateft men among the Pagans, when left to their own judgments in
matters of morality, were apt to form wrong notions concerning it, even in in-
ftances where one rtiould think the dilates of nature and reafon might have given
them better direflions. It may not be improper, on this occafion, to mention aa
obfervation of an eminent political writer Monf. de Montefquieu. He obferves,
that all nations arc agreed in looking upon the incontinence of women as a thing
that defer\'es contempt : and he fiippofes that " a natural modefty is implanted in
" women, as a defence and prefcrvative againft incontinence : that therefore it is
" not true, that incontinence follows the laws of nature : it violates thofe laws :
" and ou the contrary, it is moJeIfy and refervedQefs that follows thofc laws."
H 2 He
j2 Some of the Greecian Laws and Citjloms Part. II.
allowed hufbands to impart the ufe of their wives to handfome
and deferving men, in order to the begetting healthy and vigorous
children for the commonwealth. It is a little odd to obferve
that learned and grave philofopher Plutarch endeavouring to ju-
ftify thefe conftitutions, in his life of Lycurgus. That lawgiver
was for facrificing modefty, and the fandity of the marriage-bed,
to what he thought was for the benefit of the ftate. But thefe
conflitutions had, as might reafonably have been cxpeiSed, a very
bad influence upon their morals. The Spartan women were ac-
counted the moft immodeft and licentious of any in Greece, as
Ariftotle obfcrves {c).
I fliall conclude this account of the Lacedaemonians, and of
their laws and cufloms, with the account given of them by a late
iiigenious author : that they were a people proud, imperious, de-
ceitful, perfidious, capable of facrificing every thing to their am-
bition and their intereft, and who had no efteem of the liberal
He adds, that " where the phyfical force of certain climates carries perfons to
" violate the natural law of the two fexes, and that of intelligent beings, it is the
" bufinefs of the magirtmtc to m.ake civil laws, which may overcome the nature
■** of the climate, and re-eftablifh the primitive laws of nature *." According to
This way of rcafoning, a legiflator is ranch to be blamed, who, like Lycurgns,
enabliihes conflitutions which tend to break down that natural fence of modefly,
which is dcfigned as a prcfcrvativc againll incontinence. In tliis certainly M. de
Montcfquieu has judged much better than another wiiter of the fame nation, the
author of the book De I'Efprit, who fccms to make the great art of Icgiflation to
conlift in giving a loofc to the moft licentious inclinations, and propofes the in-
dulgence of them as a reward to merit, and an inceutlvc to the noblcft aiTtions.
(f) Arin. Politic, lib. ii. cap. 9.
* L'Efiiii Jo« Loix, vd. I. )iv. xvi. chap. ii. p. 3:3, 374.
arts
Chap. III. contrary to good Morals. ^^
arts and fclences. And after fome other ftrokes of tlie like nature,
he concludes, " Such were the manners and the genius of a people
*' admired and propoled by all profane antiquity as a pattern of
*' wifdom and virtue. — Telles etoient les moeurs et le genie d'un
*' peuple admire et propose par toute I'antiquite profane, comme
*' un modele de fagefTe et de vertu (^)."
The law and cqftom of expofing children, fo contrary to the
didates of nature and humanity, was not peculiar to Lacedaemon,
but was common in other parts of Greece, as well as among other
nations. And it is reckoned as a fingular thing among the Thebans,
that the law forbade any Theban to expofe his infant under pain of
death {e). Even the mofl: eminent philofophers, in their treatifes of
laws, prefcribcd or approved this unnatural pra;^ice. Plato would
have it ordered by law, that men or women, who are paft the age
of getting and conceiving ftrong children, fliould take care that
their offspring, if they fhould have any, ihould not come to the
birth, or fee the light j or if that fliould happen, they fhould ex-
pofe them without nourifhment (/). Ariftotle exprefly fays,,
that it fhould be a law not to bring up or nouriOi any child that
is weak or maimed : and that when the law of the country for-
bids to expofe infants, it is neccffary to limit the number of thofe
that fhould be begotten : and if any one begets children above
{<!) Dc rOrigine des Loix, des Arts, Sec. tome III. p. 380.
{e) iElian. Hiftor. var. lib. ii. cap. 7.
(/) Plato Republ. lib. v. Oper. p. 461. edU..Lugd.
the
54. ^'Om^' cfthc GiiTciiin Laws and Ciif^civ. Part IT.
the number limited by the laws, he advifes to procure abortion
before the foetus has life and fenfe {g). Juftly is this mentioned
by Mr. Locke, as a rcm.arkablc inftance to flicw, that " reafon
" had failed mankind in a pcrfedt rule, and refolved not the
" doubts that had rifen amongfl: the ftudious and thinking philo-
" fophers J nor had been able to convince the mofl; civilized parts
" of the world, that they had not given, nor could without a
" crime take away the lives of their children, by expofing
" them {h)r
But what I would efpecially take notice of as a palpable proof
of the great corruption of the Greeks, both in their notions and
practice, with regard to morals, is, that the mofl unnatural lilthi-
iiefs was countenanced and encouraged, in feveral places, by their
public laws, and almoft every-where by their known cuftoms.
It is a charge that has been often brought againfl them, that
they were very much addi<fled to the impure love of boys. I am
fenfible there is a great authority againfl: it. The learned Doiflor,
afterwards Archbifliop Potter, in his excellent Greek Antiquities,
has taken great pains to clear them from that charge ; and fcems
willing to have it thought, that the love of boys, fo generally
allowed and pradlifed among them, was perfectly innocent and
virtuous. And it were to be wiflicd, for the honour of human
nature, that it could be proved to be io. I am f.ic from faying,
(5) Arift. Politic, lib. vii. cap. 16. Opcr. torn. II. p. 447. edit. Tarif.
(*) Locke's RcafoD. of Chrill. in his Works, vol. II. p. 534. edit, 3d.
that
Chap. III. contrary to good Morah, ^^
that the love of boys, for which the Greeks were fo noted, was
univerfally of the criminal and vicious kind. But that this moft
abominable and unnatural vice was very common among thetx\,
and, in fome of their cities and ftates, encouraged by their laws,
admits of a clear proof. There need no other vouchers for it,
than the authors produced by this learned writer himfclf. One
of thefe authors is Maximus Tyrius. And it is obfcrvable, that,
at the end of his tenth diflertation, he celebrates it as a moft he-
roic adl of Agefilaus, a more glorious conquefl than any he had
atchieved againft the Perfians, and as more to be admired than
the fortitude of Leonidas, who died for his country, that being in
love with a beautiful Barbarian boy, he fufFered it to go no farther
than looking at him, and admiring him (i). Nothing could be
more impertinent and abfuid than this encomium on Agefilaus, if
the Spartan love of boys was generally as pure and innocent as the
fame author in that very differtation reprefents it. The teftimonies
of Xenophon and Plutarch are produced to fhew that the love of
boys at Sparta, and which was prefcribed by the Laws of Lycur-
gus, was pure and laudable. But the prejudices thefe two great
authors had in favour of the Lacedaemonians, the high opinion
they entertained of their laws and cufioms, and their willingnefs
(/) Epiftetus has a paflage not unlike this in commendation of Socrates's extra-
ordinary virtue. " Go to Socrates (fnys he) and fee him lying by Alcibiades, yet
■" flighting his youth and beauty. Confider what a -viftory he was confcious of
" obuining ! What an Olympic prize! So that, by heaven, one might jufUy
" faiute him; Hail! incredibly great, univerfal viiftor!" If this niamcful vice
had not been extremely common, even at Athens, Socrates's abftaining from k
could not have been celebrated, as it is here by Epi(fletus, as an aft of virtue that
dcfervcs the highcll admiration. See Epit'^ctus's DUTsrc. book ii. ch. i S. fevt, 4.
to
^6 The Lo.ivs and Cujlomt among the Greeks Part II.
to put the faireft colours upon them, is well known, and does not
a little weaken the force of their teftimony. It will foon appear,
that Plutarch is not very confiftent with himfelf in what he ad-
vances on this head. As to Xenophon, it is to be obfcrved, that
at the fame time that he vindicates the Lacedaemonians, he repre-
fents that criminal love as very common among the Greeks, and in
many places authorized by the laws : " I know (fays he) that there
** arc many who will believe nothing of this •" i. c. that the love
of boys among the Spartans was innocent and virtuous; " nor do
" I wonder at it, the unnatural love of boys is become fo common,
" that in many places it is eftablifhed by the public laws." This
teftimony of Xenophon is very remarkable with regard to others
of the Greeks, though he will not allow that the Lacedasmonians
were guilty of it. But Plato, his cotemporary, whofe teftimony
muft be allowed to be of great weight, in his eighth book of laws,
fuppofes that the mafculine love, which he there condemns as
contrary to nature, was allowed both among the Lacedaemonians
and the Cretans {k). The exxellent writer above-mentioned will
by no means allow that the love of boys ufual among the Cretans
was criminal ; and aflerts, that nothing pafled between them and
•their lovers that was contrary to the ftricfteft rules of virtue: for which
he quotes Maximus Tyrius and Strabo, who tell us, that the Cretans
profefled that it was not fo much the external beauty of a boy, as his
virtuous difpofition, his courage and conduct, that recommended him
to their love. And this might be the pretence they alledged ; and
in fome inftances might really be the cafe. But, I think, wliofoever
(A) Plato dc Leg. lib. viii. Opcr. p. 645. C. H. eJit. Lugd.
impartially
5
diap. III. contrary to good Mcrals. 57
impartially examines what Strabo fays concerning it, will not be
apt to look upon the love he there fpeaks of as very innocent.
The whole turn of the pafTage feems to me to have a contrary
appearance. And I find the learned and ingenious author De
rOrigine des Loix, &c. looks upon it in the fame light, and cites
this very pafiage of Strabo to fliew that unnatural lufl: was en-
couraged by the Cretan law. And Plutarch, at the fame time
that he reprefents the love of boys in ufe at Athens and Sparta as
having nothing blameable in it, exprefly condemns that fort of it
in Crete, which they called by the name of a ^Ta^'wo? (/), which
is that very love which Strabo fpeaks of in the paflage referred
to (/«). Plato, not only in the eighth book of laws already cited,
hut in his firfl book of laws, blames the Cretans for mafculine
mixtures ; and intimates, that they were wont to juftify them-
fclves by the example of Jupiter and Ganymede («). Ariflotle
tells us, that to prevent their having too many children, there was
a law among the Cretans, for encouraging that fort of unnatural
love (f).
It appears from fome pafifages of Pfutarch, that he was willing
to have it thought that the love of boys in ufe among the Greeks
was a pure and generous afFedion : but at other times he makes
acknowledgements which plainly flitw the contrary. In his life
(/) Plutarch, de liber, cducandis. Opcr. torn. H. p. 11, edit. Xyl.
{m) Strabo, lib. x. p. 739, 740. edit. Atnft.
(«) Plato de Leg. lib. i. Opcr. p. 569. G. edit. Lugd. 1590.
(a) AriA. Politic, lib. ii. cap. 10, Oper. torn. II. p. 333. !\. edit. Paiif. 1629.
Vol. II. I of
r8 The Laiv! and CuJIoms nmofig the Greeks Partll.
of Pclopidas, he tells, that the legiflators encouraged the love of
boys, to temper the manners of their Youth, and that it produced
excellent effedls, and particularly among the Thebans. But the
fame great philofopher, who undoubtedly was inclined to give a
favourable account of the Thebans, whofe countryman he was,
in his treatife De liberis educandis, exprefly declares, that fucli
mafculine loves were to be avoided, as were in ufe at Thebes and
Elis (/)). And his joining Thebes with Elis fliews that it is a
very criminal palhon he fpeaks of. For we have the teftimony
ef Maximus Tyrius, in that differtation in which he endeavours
to vindicate fome of the Grascian flates from the charge, that the
Elians encouraged that licentioufnefs, as he calls it, by a law {q).
Nothing can be more evident than it is from Plutarch's treatife
called '£f;^Ti)c5,-, or Amatorius, that this abominable vice had
made a great progrcfs among the Greeks, and was openly coun-
tenanced and pleaded for. One of his dialogifts there argues for
it at large, and highly commends it. He reprefents the Lacedje-
monians, Ba;otians, Cretans, and Chalcidians, as much addidled
to it. And another of his dialogifts, who, it is to be fiippofed,
exprefles Plutarch's own fentiments, condemns it in very ftrong
terms, and Ihews its pernicious effedls. Athcnjrus tells us, that
it was not only pradtifed, but encouraged and promoted in many
of the cities of Greece {r). At Athens indeed there was a law
againfl; it. And Plutarch fccnis to recommend the love of boys
(/) Plutarch, ubi fupra, p. ii.
{q) Max. Tyr. Dirtert. lo, p. i;8. Oxon. 1677.
(r) Deipnofoph. lib. xiii. p. 602. edit. Liigd.
in
Chap. Iir. contrary to good Mcrah. jp
in ufe at Sparta and Athens as virtuous, and worthy to be emu-
lated, tliough he condemns that at Thebes and Elis [s). As to
Sparta, the accounts given of it by antient authors, and by Plu-
tarch himfelf, feem to vary. But, whatever might have been
the original dcfign of the conftitution eftabliflied by Lycurgus
with rcfpedt to it, there is too much reafon to think, that, as it
was generally praiflifed among the I-acedasmonians, it was not
very innocent. With regard to the Athenians, Plutarch tells us
concerning their great lawgiver Solon, that it appears from his
poems, that he was not proof againfl: beautiful boys, and had not
courage enough to refifl: the force of love. He obferves, that he was
in love with Pififlratus, becaufc of his extraordinary handfomenefs :
and that by a law he forbade pasderafty or the love of boys to
Haves ; making that, as Plutarch obferves, an honourable and re-
putable a(3:ion ; and as it were invitii>g the worthy to (he pradlice
of that which he commanded the unworthy to forbear [t). And
in his Amatorius above referred to, he introduces Protogcnes, one
of his dialogifls, arguing in favour of that pradlice, from this
conftitution of Solon [u). Maximus Tyrius, who takes a great
deal of pains to vindicate Socrates from that charge, owns, that
at the time when this philofopher flouriflied, this vicious paflioa
had arrived to the greatell height, both in other parts of Greece,
and particularly at Athens; and that all places were full of unjull
or wicked lovers, and boys that were enticed and deluded (.v).
{s) Plutarch, ubi fupni.
{/) Plutarch. See PlutaicU's Life of Solon, at the begntiir.g.
(//) Plutarch: Oper. torn. I[. p. 751. cJit XylanJ.
(.t) Max. Tyr. dldlrt lo, iniiio.
I 2 So '
6o 71. c Lams and Gufiomi among. ike Grech Part II..
So iLut it there was a iaw againll it at Athens, it ieems to have
been little regarded.
To the tcftimonles which have been produced may be added
that of Cicero, who reprefents that practice as very common
among the Greeks : and that what helped to introduce and fpread
it, was the cuflotn of the youths appearing naked in the public
cxercifes. And he obferves, that their poets, great men, and even
their learned men and philofophers, not only pradifed, but gloried
in it ()•). And accordingly he elfewhere reprefents it as the cuftom,
not of particular cities only, but of Greece in general. Speaking of
the things that might be thought to contribute to Dionyfius's happi-
nefs, he mentions his having paramours of that kind " according
" to the curtom of Greece. — Habebat, more Grxcia:, quofdam
" adolefcentcs amore conjuniftos (sr)." And in a paflage cited by
Ladlantius, he mentions it as a bold and hazardous thing in the
Greeks, that they confecrated the images of the Loves and Cupids
in the places of their public cxercifes [a).
I iiave infilled the more largely upon this, becaufe there cannot
be a more convincing proof, tliat the laws and ciiftoms, even in
the moft learned and civilized nations, are not to be depended
upon as proper guides in matters of iporality. The Greeks are
{y) Tufcul. Difput. lib. U'. cap. 33.
(2) Ibid. lib. V. c.ip. 20. p. 385. edit. Davis.
(a) " Magnum Cicero audaxqiic confilium fufccpini- Grxciam dicit, quod Cu-
" pidinum c-t Amorum fimulachrx in gymnafiis confccrairet." Laiflant. Divin.
Inftit. lib. i. cap. 20. p. 106. Lugd. Bat. 1660.
rcrrardcd
CJiap. III. contrary to good Morah. 6 1
regarded and admired as the mofl eminent ol" the Pagan nations,
for their knowledge in philofophy, and elpecially in morals, and
as having cultivated their reafon in an extraordinary degree. They
valued themfelves mightily upon their wifdom, and the Oiicellency
of their laws ; and yet their laws, or generally allowed cuftoms,
fliewed that they were become amazingly corrupt, both in their
notions and pradtices, with regard to morals ; and that in inftances,
as to which one would have thought the light of nature would
have given them a fufficient diredtion. I fay, they were become
very corrupt in their notions as well as pradlices. For though fome
of them acknowledged the evil and turpitude of that unnatural
vice, yet, in the general opinion, it feems to have pafied among
them for no fault at all, or a very light one. And many of their
philofophcrs and moralifts, as I fliall have occafionto fliew after-
wards, reprefented it as a matter perfeftly indifferent. Barolefanes,
an antient and learned writer, in a large extradl quoted from him
byEufebius, after having mentioned fome barbarous nations, which
were much addidled to that vice, and others who had it in ab-
horrence, obferves, that in Greece fuch kind of mafculine loves
were not accounted difgraceful, even to the wife [h). St. Paul,
therefore, in drawing up his charge of an amazing corruption of
morals in the Heathen world, very juftly puts this in the firft place,
as being both of the highcft enormity, and very common not only
among the people, but the philofophcrs themfelves. Nor is it
probable, that any thing Icfs than a Divine Law, enforced by the
'J>) Eufcb. Pia-p. Evangel, lib. vi. cap. lo. p. z-C). D.
authority
62 TZ^ La'jvi and Cujlotns among the Greeks, Cfc. Part II.
authority of God himfelf, and by the moft exprefs denunciations of
the Divine Wrath and Vengeance againft fuch crimes, could have
over-ruled the force of fuch inveterate cuftom and example, coun-
tenanced by the maxims and pradicc of thofe who made high pre-
tences to wifdom and reafoD.
c 11 A r.
Chap. IV. La'i^s and Cujioms of the antient Romans confidered. 63
CHAP. IV.
Farther tnjlancei of civil Imvs and cujloms among the Pagan na-
tions. Thofe of the antient Romans confidered. The laws of
the twelve tables, though mightily extolled, ivere far from ex-
hibiting a complete rule of f/iorals. The law of Romulus con-
cerning the expofing of difeafed and deformed children. This con-
tinued to be pra6lifed among the Romans. Their cruel treatment
of their Jlaves. Their gladiatory foews contrary to humanity.
Unnatural lufis common among them as well as the Greeks. Ob-
fervations on the Chinefe laws and cujloms. Other laws and
cufoms of nations mentioned, which are contrary to good mo-
rals.
FROM the Greeks let us pafs to the Romans, whofe good
policy and government has been greatly admired, and who
have been regarded as the moft virtuous of all the Pagan nations.
And it mufl: be owned, that in the moft antient times of the Ro-
man ftate, they were free from thofe vices which luxury and ef-
feminacy are apt to produce. There were Ihining examples
among them of probity, juftice, fidelity, fortitude, a contempt
of plcafures and riches, and love to their country. But the body
of the people were rude and ignorant to a great degree, funk in
an idolatry and fuperftition, than which nothing could be more
grofs and ftupid. Their virtue was rough and favage : they made
glorjr
^4 The Laws and Cajioms of Part II.
glcry to confin: chiefly in military bravery: and their love to their
country was, for the moft part, only a ftrong paflion for rendering
it the miftrefs of all others. To this they made every thing give
wayj and often broke through the rules cA jufticc and equity, to
promote what they thought the intercft f the {late ; jealous of
any people, that were for prefcrving themi":lves in a ftate of li-
berty and independency. To which it may be added, that they
were for a long time without a written code of laws. And the
people fuffered fo much by the injuilice, infolence, and arbitrary
oppreflion of their magiftrates and great men, even in what are
accounted the moft virtuous times of the republic, that they in-
fifted very juftly upon having a written body of laws, which fliould
be the ftanding rule of judgment. This was accordingly accom-
pliflied. Selcd perfons were chofen to colledt and compile laws
for the commonwealth, who travelled into Greece for that pur-
pofe ; and with great fagacity chofe the beft inftitutions of the
Graecian ftates, and other nations. Hence came the famous laws
of the twelve tables, which have been fo much celebrated both
by antients and moderns. Cicero, who was certainly a very able
judge, frequently fpeaks of them in terms of the higheft approba-
tion. And particularly, in his firft book De Oratore, in tlie per-
fon of that great lawyer and orator L. Craflus. He not only pre-
fers them to all other civil laws and conftitutions, particularly to
thofc of the Greeks, but to all the writings of the philofophcrs.
He makes no fcruple to declare, that though all men fliould be
difpleafed at him for it, he would freely own it as his opiniors
" That the fingle book of the twelve tables was fuperior to the
" librariei
Chap. IV. the antient Romans conf.dtred. 6 J
" libraries of all the philofophers, both in the weight of its au-
" thority, and in the abundant utility arifing from it (c)."
But however thofe laws might deferve great praife, confidered
as good civil conftitutions, I believe there are few that will pre-
tend, that they exhibited a perfedl rule of morals, or gave men a
clear and full diredtion as to every branch of their duty. That
part of thofe laws which related to facred things, was evidently
calculated, like the laws of other Heathen nations, to uphold the
public idolatry and polytheifm. The body of thefe laws was de-
figned to regulate the condudl of the citizens towards the public,
and towards one another, to fettle men's private rights, and to be
the rule of judyment for the regulation of the civil policy, and for
the fecurity ant advantage of the ftate. And many of their con-
ftitutions were undoubtedly excellent, taken in this view j but, like
other civil lawi, could be of no great force for regulating the in-
ward temper and difpofitions of the mind. Monf. de Montefquieii
obferves, that there was an extreme fcverity in feveral of their
laws, fuitable to the rudenefs and rigidity of the antient Romans.
The law concerning debtors is mentioned by feveral authors, and
was remarkable for its inhumanity. The creditor was allowed to
keep the debtor in clofe confinement fixty days ; and afterwards,
in cafe he did not pay the debt within the time prcfcribed by the
law, or find fuflicient fecurity, he was condemned to lofe his
(c) " Fremant omnes licet, dicam quod fentiam, bibliothecas omnium philofo-
" phorum, unus mihi vidctur duodecim tabularum libcllus, fiquis legum fontes
" ct capita viderit, ut authoritatis ponderc et utilitails ubertate fuperare," Cic.
de Orat. lib. i. cap. 42, 4;?.
Vol. II. K head,
CS The immoral Laws and Cujloms Partll.
head, or to be fold as a flave. This might feem to be fevere enough,
but the law went farther ftill, and permitted the creditors, if
there were feveral of them, to cut the dead body of the debtor
in pieces, and divide it among them. Nothing can excufe the
barbarity of this law, even fuppofing it to have been defigned
only in terrorem. And indeed the laft part of it was fo fliocking,
that we are told there was no inftance of its being put in execu-
tion, but it fell, and was abrogated by difufe (i).
Dionyfius HalicarnafTeus, who was a great admirer of the infli-
tutions of the antient Romans, informs us, that Romulus obliged
the citizens to bring up all their male children, and the cldeft of
the females. They were allowed, therefore, to deftroy all their
female children but the eldeft. And even with regard to their
male children, if they were deformed or monftrous, he permitted
the parents to expofc them, after having fhewn them to live of
their nearcft neighbours [e). There is a paflage in Cicero's third
book of laws, from which it has been concluded, that the law of
Romulus with regard to the expofing and deftroying male chil-
dren that were remarkably deformed, was confirmed by a con-
ilitution of the twelve tables ( / ). A very learned writer has
taken notice of a remarkable pafTage in Terence, from which it
appears, that this inhuman cuftom of expofing and deflroying
{d) Quiatilian takes notice of this law, lib. v. cap. 6. So docs A. Gcllius.
And Tertullian refers to it, Apol. cap. 4.
(r) Dion. Ilalic. Roman Antiquities, lib. ii.
(/) Cic. de Leg. lib. iii. cap. 8. p. xo;. where fee Dr. D.ivjs's note.
children.
Chap. IV". atfiong the antlent Romans. ^j
children, efpeclally females, was not uncommon, even among
parents of the beft charadters. After having obferved, that " of
" all the moral painters, Terence is he who fcems to have copied
*' human nature mort: exadlly," he adds, that " yet his man of
" univerfal benevolence, whom he draws with fo much life in
" that mafterly flroke. Homo fum, humani nihil a me alienuni
" puto, is the fame perfon who commands his wife to expofe his
" new-born daughter, and flies into a pafTion with her, for having
" committed that hard tafk to another, by which means the infant
" efcaped death. — Si meum imperium exequi voluiffes, interemp-
" tam oportuit. — And he [Chremes] chara<5lerizes fuch who had
" any remains of this natural inftindl as perfons — qui neque jus,
*' neque bonum atque squum fciunt {g)" Such were the fcnti-
ments published with applaufe on the Roman theatre. And it ap-
pears from a paflage of Seneca, that i.o late as in his time, it was
ufual among the Romans to deftroy weak and deformed children.
" Portentofos foetus extinguimus : liberos quoque, fi debiles mon-
" ftrofique editi funt, mergimus (/&)."
The cruelty of the Lacedaemonians towards their flaves has beea
taken notice of. The laws and cuftoms of the Romans, with re-
fpcdl to them, were little better. It was not unufual for the mafters
to put their old, fick, and infirm flaves into an ifland in the Tyber,
where they left them to pcrifli. And fo far did fume of them
{g) Divine Legation of Mofcs, vol. I. book i. feci. 4. p. 58. tnnrg. notf,
edit. 4th.
[h) Sen. dc Iia, lib. i. cap. 1 5.
K a carry
63 7I:e immoral Laws and Cuftomi Part. II.
carry their luxury and wantonnefs, as to drown their flavcs in the
fifh-ponds, that they might be devoured by the fifli, to make
their fle{h more deHcate (/). The cuflom of gladiatory fliows,
which obtained univerfally among the Romans, even when they
■were famous for the politer arts, and were thought to give a
pattern of good government to other nations, was alfo contrary to
the rules of humanity. They were exhibited at the funerals of
great and rich men, and on many other occafions, by the Roman
confuls, prastors, asdiles, fenators, knights, priefts, and almoft; all
that bore great offices in the ftatc, as well as by the emperors ;
and in general by all that had a mind to make an intcrefl: with
the people, who were extravagantly fond of thofc kinds of fliows.
Not only the men, but the women ran eagerly after them, who
were, by the prevalence of cuftom, fo far diverted of that com-
paffion and foftnefs which is natural to the fex, that they took a
pleafure in feeing them kill one another, and only defired that
they fhould fall genteelly, and in an agreeable attitude. Such
was the frequency of thefe fliows, and fo great the number of
men that were killed on thefe occafions, that Lipfius fays, no war
caufcd fuch flaughter of mankind, as did thefe fports of pleafure,
throughout the feveral provinces of the vafl: Roman empire.
That odious and unnatural vice, which (as has been fliewn)
prevailed too much in Greece, was alfo common among the Ro-
mans, efpecially in the latter times of their flate. Many paflages
might be produced from their poets, which plainly refer to it.
(/) See L'Efprit, di.l-. z. chap. 24.
2 To
Chap, IV. among the antient Romans. 6p
To which I (hall add what a learned author obfcrves, that
" Cicero introduces, without any mark of difapprobation, Cotta,
" a man of the firft rank and genius, freely and famiharly owning
" to other Romans of the fame quality, that worfe than beaftly
" vice, as pradlifcd by himfelf, and quoting the authority of an-
" tient philofophers in vindication of it [k)." It appears from
. what Seneca fays, in his 5)jth epiftle, that in his time it was
pracftifed at Rome openly, and without fliame. He there fpeaks
of flocks and troops of boys, diftinguiflied by their colours and
nations; and that great care was taken to train them up for that,
dtteftable employment (/).
It is not ncceffary to add any thing more to fliew, that among
the Greeks and Romans, the mod celebrated nations in the antient
Pagan world, their laws and conftitutions, though in many re-
fpedls excellent, were far from exhibiting a proper rule of morals
to guide the people : they failed in very important inftances : and
fome of the cultoms, which at length became very prevalent
among them, were of a moft immoral nature and tendency, and
{k) Dr. Tailour's Notes and Parnphrafe on the Epiftle to the Romans, on
chap. i. 26. " Qiiotiis enim quifqiie formofus eft ? Athenis cum efTem, egregibus
" EphaeboiucTi vix fmgu'.i repericbantur. Video quid fubrifci is. Scd t.imen ita fe
" res habet. Dcinde nobis, qui concedentibiis phiiofophii adolefcontiilis deiefla-
" mur, cti.im vitia fepejucundafunt." And he immediately after mentions Alcaeus's
being ple;ifcd v. ith a bltmifh in the boy he was in love with ; and Q^Catulus's
being in love with Rofcius, who had diftorted eyes. Cic. de Nat. Dtor. lib. i.
cap.. 23.
(/) " Pucrorum infelicium grcges, agtnlna exoletorum, per nationes coloreiqiiii
" dtfcripta," &c. Ep. 95.
fliewei
7P The Chinefe La-ws and Conjlitutlom Part II.
■{hewed them to be funk into an amazing corruption and depravity
of manners.
It may not be improper, on this occafion, to take notice of the
Chinefe, who have been mightily extolled for their antiquity, the
extent of their empire, the wifdom and excellency of their laws
and conflitutions, and the goodnefs of their morals. A noted
author, who has diftinguiflied himfelf in afferting the clearnefs
. and fufficiency of the Law and Religion of Nature in oppofition
to Revelation, lays a particular ftrefs upon this. He reprefents
" the infidels of China (as he calls them) as having the preference
" to Chriftians in relation to all moral virtues." And he tells us,
from the famous Mr. Leibnitz, that " fuch is our growing cor-
" ruption, that it may almofl: feem neceflary to fend fome Chinefe
" miflionaries to teach us the ufe and pradtice of Natural Theo-
" logy, as we fend miflionaries to them to teach them Revealed
" Religion (w)." But if we take their laws and conflitutions in
the mod advantageous light, it mufl be owned, indeed, that they
are well calculated for preferving external public order and de-
cency, and for the regulation of the civil polity, but are altogether
infufficient to furnifli a complete rule of morals, or to lead men
into the pradtice of real piety and virtue, conOdered in its juft
extent. F. Navarette, who lived many years in China, and was
well acquainted with their language, their laws, and books, and
who fccms to have given an honeft and impartial account of
(fn) ChrlAianity as old as the Creation, p. 366, 367. edit. Svo.
them
Chap. IV". no perfc5i Rule of Morals, yt
them («), fays, that " he believes the outward behaviour is not
" taken care of fo much in any part of the world, as it is in
*^ China : that whatever they do or fay is fo contrived, that it*may
" have a good appearance, pleafe all, and offend none : and that
" doubtlefs that nation excels all others in outward modefty, gra-
" vity, good words, courtefy, and civility (o)." Yet what he
fays of them in feveral parts of his book, gives one a very difad-
vantageous idea of their morals. He reprefents the fin againfl: na-
ture as extremely common among them : and that in the time of
the former Chinefe emperors, there were public ftews of this kind
at Pequin, though not now allowed by the Tartars (/!>). That
they do not look upon drunkennefs to be a crime (^). That every
one takes as many concubines as he can keep (r). That many of
the common people pawn their wives in time of need, and feme
lend them for a month, or more, or lefs, according as they
agree (s). That there are many things in China which make
matrimony void, fome of them very trifling. He quotes a book
(«) I do not find that Father Navarette's name appears in the lift of the authors,
whofc names are prefixed to F. Du Halde's Hifiory of China, and out of whofe
accounts he compiled his hiftory. But as he found fault with the wrong and par-
tial accounts given by feveral authors of the fociety, I fuppofe it was thought pro-
per to take no notice of him ; though he well deferved to have been mentioned
simong the beft of thofe wjio have given accounts of China.
(o) See Navarette's Account of the Empire of China, book ii. chap. 7. p. 122,
1^23 . in the firft volume of Churchill's Colleftion,
(p) Ibid, book i. chap. 13. p. 29. and book ii. p. 68.
{q) Ibid, book i. cliap. 15.
(r) Ibid, book ii. chap. 7. p. 68_
(x) Ibid>
of
•jz Immoviil Ciifiomi among the Chincfe Parti I.
of great authority among them, in which it is faid, concerning
the antient wife men of China, who are there celebrated as men
of greater finccrity and virtue than the moderns, that they turned
away their wives, becaufe the houfe was full of fmoke, or becaufe
they frightened the dog with their difagreeable noife. And tliat
the anticnts difTolved the knot of matrimony without a word
fpeaking. In the fame book it is determined, that when tiie wife
is turned off, the hufband may marry another (/). F. Navarette
farther obferves, that the Chinefe fell their fens and daughters
when they pleafe, and do it frequently («). But what is llill
worfe, very many of them, rich as well as poor, when they
•are delivered of daughters, ftifle and kill them. Thofc who
are more tender-hearted leave them under a veflel, where they
let tliem die in great mifcry : of which he gives a moft affediing
inilaace to his own knowledge. And he fays, it was the com-
mon opinion, that there were about ten thoufand female children
murdered every year within the precinds of the city Lao Ki,
where he lived fome time. " How many then (fays he) mufl
" we imagine periflied throughout the whole empire (.v) ?" Yet,
he fays, " all the feds among them, cx'cept that of the learned,
'■'■ think it a fin to kill living creatures: they plead humanity and
^' compaflion, thinking it a cruel thing to take that life wliich
" they cannot give. But it is very well worth remarking (fays
{t) Navarctte's Accourt of the Empire of Chhi;i, book ii. thap. 7. p. 67.
(m) Ibid, book i. chap. 20. p. 47,
(at) Ibid, book ii. ch.ap. 10. p. 77.
" he)
Chap. IV. and other ant lent Heathen Nations. 7^
*' he) that they fhould endeavour to fliew themfelves merciful
" to hearts, yet murder their own daughters." He adds, that
" in India they have hofpitals for all forts of irrational creatures,
" and yet they let men die without affifting them in their fick-
" nefs (_>')•" Many have talked of the brotherly afFedlion and
benevolence of the Chinefe towards one another ; but it appears,
from the fame writer, that though they carry a fair appearance,
and " are exquifite at concealing the mortal hatred they bear any
*' man for feveral years, yet, when an opportunity offers, they
" give full vent to it. It often happens, that in law fuits, the
" defendant hangs himfelf, only to ruin and avenge himfelf of
" the plaintiff: for when he is hanged, all his kindred repair to
" the judge, complaining that he hanged himfelf to avoid the
" trouble and vexation the plaintiff put him to, having no other
" remedy left him. Then all join againft the plaintiff, and the
" judge among them ; and they never give over, till they ruin
" him and all his family (z)." Father Trigantius, and from
him Cornelius a Lapide, fay, concerning the Chinefe, that " they
" wonderfully follow the track of nature and reafon, and are
" courteous, and apt to learn, as well as ingenious and great po-
" liticians, and therefore very capable of Chriftian wifdom," fee.
(_)») Navareitc's Account of tlie Empire of China, book ii. chip. 10. p. 77.
(2) IbiJ. book i. chap. 20. p. 47. What N;ivarcttc here fays concerning the
litigioufnefs of the Chinefe, is confirmed by the tefUmony of the Jcfuits, who
compiled the Scientia Sinenfis Latinc expofita. They obfcrve, that there is an
infinite number of law fuits in China, and every-wherc a thoufand arts of cheat-
ing, of which all the tribunals are full. " Infiniius litiutn ct litigantium in China
" hodie efl numerus; mille ^aflim fallcndi fingcndlve artcs, qnibus tribunalia
" omnia plena funt." Sclent. Sin. lib. i. p. 12.
Vol. II. L F. Navarette,
74 Immoral Cujioms among the Chlncfe Part II.
F. Navarette, who mentions this, remarks upon it, that " if tlicir
" being fo addiifled to fiiperftitions, fodomy, fraud, lying, pride,
" covetoufnefs, fenfuality, and other vices, is following the courfe
" of nature and reafon, then that flxther was in the right (d)." To
what has been produced from F. Navarette, I would add, that
an author of great reputation for political knowledge has obfcrvcd,
that " the Chinefe, whofe whole life is entirely governed by the
" ellablilLed rites, are the mofl. void of common honefty of any
" people upon earth j — Ic pcuple le plus fourbe de la terrc>" and
that the laws, though they do not allow them to rob or to fpoil
by violence, yet permit them to cheat and to defraud [hi). Agree-
able to this is the character given of them in Lord Anfon's Voyages,
where there are ftriking inftances of the general difpofition that is
among them to commit all kinds of fraud.
It were eafy to produce feveral other laws and cufloms of dif-
ferent nations contrary to the rules of morality. Some nations
there have been, among whom theft and robbery was accounted
honourable. Others gave a full indulgence by law to all maimer
of impurity and licentioufnefs, both in men and women. Others,
as the Perfians, allowed the mofl inceftuous mixtures. And there
were feveral nations, among whom it was ufual to expofe and
deftroy their nearell: friends and relatives, and even then- parents,
when they grew old and very fick, clleeming thofe to be moll
(<j) Navarette's Account of the Empire of China, book v. p. 173.
(i) L'Efprit des Loix, vol.1, llv. xi.x. chap. 17. p. 437- ct 'L-id. ch.ip. :o.
p. 440, 441. edit. Edinb.
■ p xniferable
Chap. IV. and other aiitient Heathen Nations. 75
miierable who died a natural death {c). Eufebliis gives fevcral
ether inftances of ablurd and immoral laws and cuftoms, which
obtained among many people before the light of the Gofpel flione
amongfl them. But he obferves, that no fooner did any of them
embrace Chriftianity, but they abandoned thofe laws and cuftoms,
which nothing could prevail with them to do before. And this
he juftly mentions as a proof of the happy effedls produced by the
Gofpel, in reforming tlie manners of men (</).
The fame learned father has a long extrad from Burdefanes,
an eminent antient writer, concerning the various cuftoms and
laws in different nations, partly written, and partly unwritten,
fome of which were good and laudable, others of an immoral
nature and tendency. It is too long to be tranfcribed here, but
may be feen in the fixth book of Eufebius's Evangelical Prepara-
tion, cap. 10. p. 175. et feq. The reader may alfo confult Sextus
Empiricus, Pyrrhon. Hypotyp. lib. iii. cap. 24. and a modern
author, who has made a large coUeftion of abfurd and fhameful
laws and cuftoms in fcveral nations, antient and modern, efpe-
cially fuch as tend to encourage all manner of lewdnefs and
(c) The .luthor of a Kite periodical paper, piiblidied at Paris, intituled, Lc
Confei-vateur, pleads in favour of the laws of thofe nations, which ordered old
and infirm pcrfons to be put to death. He pretends, that there is nothing in this,
but what is conformable to rtafon, though he owns it is not reconcilcablc to the
Gofpel. And he thinks it would be fit and reafonablc, to determine by law the
term beyond which perfons fliould not be fulTcrcd to live. Le Confcrvuteur for
March 1757, as cited by the Abbe Gauchet, in his Lcttres Critiques. An iu-
ftance this, among many others that mi<:;ht be mentioned, of the extravagancies
men are apt to fall into, through a high opinion of their own rcafon.
((/) Prxpar. Evangel, lib. i. cap. 4. p. 11, 12. edit. Paris.
L 2 debauchery
76 Fdtther Injlcinces of immoral Latcs arid Cti/Iowi Part If.
debauchery {e). It is eafy to obferve, that this laft-mentioned
writer enlarges upon fome of thofe laws and cuftoms, which are
contrary to all the rules of niodedy and purity, in a manner
which fliews that he is far from difapproving them, and feems
rather to recommend them as models of a wife legiflation. We
may fee by this what hne fyilems of legiflation might be ex-
pedled from fome of thofe, who make the highell pretences to
any extraordinary fagacity ; and what an advantage it is, not to
be left merely to what men's boafled reafon, which is too often
guided and influenced by their paflions, would be apt to didate
in morals.
I fhall conclude what relates to the laws and cuftoms of the
Pagan nations, with obferving, that Lord Bolingbroke, who, as
hath been already hinted, feems to lay the princi^>al flrefs on
human laws, as furnifliing the moft effedlual means for pro-
moting and fecuring the pradlice of virtue, yet has thought fit to
.own, that " the law of nature has been blended with many ab-
" furd and contradidory laws in all ages and countries, as well
" as with cufloms, which, if they were independent on laws, have
" obtained the force of laws [f) The fame noble writer, who
frequently reprefents the law of nature as univerfally clear and
obvious to all mankind, has made this remarkable acknowledg-
ment, that " the law of nature is Ixid from our fight by all the
(f) L'Efprir, tome I. difc. 2. chap. 14 et 15.
(/) Bolingbroke's Works, vol. V. p. ij. cJit. 410.
** variegated
Chap. IV. ammig the Pagan Nations. 77
" variegated clouds of civil laws and cuftoms. Some gleams of
" true light may be feen through them, but they render it a
" dubious light, and it can be no better to thofe who have the
" keeneft fight, till thofe interpofitions are removed (^)." It
may not be improper here to add a paffage or two from a cele-
brated antient, relating to civil laws. Cicero declares, that " the
" commands and prohibitions of human laws have not afufficient
" force, either to engage men to right adiions, or avert them
" from bad ones. — Intelligi fie oportet, jufia ac vetita populorum
*' vim non habere ad redle fadla vocandi, et a peccatis avo-
" candi (/»)." And he pronounces, that " it would be the
" greateft folly to imagine, that all thofe things are juft which
" are contained in popular inftitutions and laws. — Illud flultifli-
" mum exiftimare omnia jufta efle, qu£B fita funt in populorum
" inftitutis aut legibus (/')."
Thus it appears, with great evidence, that the civil laws and
conftitutions in the Pagan world were far from affording a fafe
and certain rule, which might be depended upon, for the diredlion
of the people in moral duty.
As to the myftieries of which a very eminent writer has made
a beautiful reprefentation, as an excellent expedient contrived by
(_g) Bolingbroke's Works, Vol. V. p. 105. edit. 410..
(A) De Leg. lib. i. cap. 4.
(i) Ibid. cap. 1 5.
ihe
yt 77)e Heathen My/Ieries of no great Advantage Part II.
the legi/lators and civil raagiftrates, for reclaiming the people from
their idolatry and polytheifm, and engaging them to a life of the
ftridleft virtue, I need not here add any thing to what is offered
on this fubjedl in the former volume [k). It is there Ihewn, that
there is no fufficient reafon to think that the myfteries were in-
tended to dete<ft the error of the vulgar polytheifm, but rather on
the contrary, by ftriking (hows and reprefentations, to create a
greater awe and veneration for the religion of their country. And
as to morals, notwithftanding the high pretenfions of fome Pagan
writers, efpecially after Chriftianity had made fome progrefs, it
does not appear, that the original defign of them went farther,
than the humanizing and civilizing the people, and encouraging
them to the practice of thofe virtues, and deterring them from
thofe vices, which more immediately affect fociety. It will
fcarce, I believe, be pretended, that admitting the moft favour-
able account of the myfteries, the people were there inftrufted
in a complete body of morals. But the truth is, there were
great defe(fl:s and faults in the original conftitution of them, which
naturally gave occafion to corruptions and abufes, which began
early, and continued long; fo that it is to be feared, the my-
fteries, as they were managed, greatly contributed to that
amazing depravation of manners, which, like a deluge, over-
fpread the Pagan world. It is obferved by the celebrated author
above referred to, that " God, in punilhment ' for turning his
" Truth into a lie,' fuffcrcd their myfteries, which thcv credcd
(*) Sec vol. I. chap, viii and ix.
" for
Chap. IV. to the Morals of the People. j^
" for a fchool of virtue, to degenerate into an odious fink of
" vice and immorality, giving them up unto all uncleannefs and
" vile affe(Sions (/)."
(/) Divine Legation of Mofes, vol. I. book ii. feifl. 4. p, 196. margiaal note,
edit. 4th.
CHAT.
go Concerning Morality Part II.
CHAP. V.
Concerning morality as taught by the antient Heathen philofophcrs.
Some of them /aid excellent things concerning moral virtue, and
their writings might in feveral refpeBs be of great life. But
they could not furnipi a ferfeB rule of morals, that had fuficient
certainty, clearnefs, and authority. No one philofopher^ or feSl
ofphilofophers, can be abfohitely depended upon as a proper guide
in matters of morality. Nor is a complete fyjlem of morals to
be extracted from the writings of them all colleBively confidercd.
The vanity of fuch an attempt f^ewn. Their fentiments, hoia
excellent foever, could not properly pafs for laws to mankind.
THOUGH the civil laws and conftitutions, or thofe cuftoms
which obtained the force of laws, in the Heathen world,
could not furnifli out a rule of morality, which might be de-
pended upon, to guide men to the true knowledge and pradlice
of moral duty in its juft extent, yet it may be alledged, that the
inflrudllons and precepts of the philofophcrs were, if duly at-
tended to, fufficient for that purpofe. This is what many have
infifted on, to flicw that there was no need oi an extraordinary
Divine Revelation to give men a complete rule of moral duty.
It is well known what praifcs many of the anticnts have bellowed
on philofophy, and that they have particularly extolled its great
ufcfulnefs and excellency with regard to morals. Cicoro has
feveral
Chap. V, trs taught hy the Heathen Phi/ojophcrs. 8i
feveral remarkable pallages to this purpofe (w). He fays, that
" philofophy is the culture of the mind, and pkicketh up vice
" by the roots : that it is the medicine of the foul, and hcaleth
" the minds of men : that from thence, if we would be good
" and happy, we may draw all proper helps and afilftances for
" leading virtuous and happy lives: that the correftion of all our
" vices and fins is to be fought for from philofophy." And he
breaks forth into that rapturous encomium upon it : " O philo-
" fophy, the guide of life ! the fearcher out of virtue, and ex-
" peller of vice ! What fliould we be, nay, what would the
" human life be without thee ! Thou waft the inventrefs of
" laws, the miftrefs or teacher of manners and difcipline. To
" thee we flee : from thee we beg afTiftance, And one day
" fpent according to thy precepts is preferable to an immortality
" fpent in fin." Seneca fays, that " philofophy is the ftudy of
" virtue («)•" ■''^"^ fome of the moderns have come little behind
the antients, in the admiration they have exprelfed for the Heathen
moral philofophy.
(m) " Cultura anirai philofoph'w eA, haec extrahit vitia radicitus : eft profcfto
" animi meJicina philofophia, medetur animis : ab ea, fi et boni et beati volumus
" efTe, omnia adjumenta et aiixilia peteinus bene beateque vivendi : vitiorum pec-
" catorumque noftrorum, omiiis a philofophia petenda correiftio eft. O vitae phi-
" lofophia dux ! virtutis indagatiix, expultrixqiie viriorum ! Quitl non modo
" nos, fed omnino vita hominuin, fine te efte potuiiret ! Tu invcntrix legum, tu
" magiftra morum et difciplinx f uifti. Ad te confiigimiis : a te opcni petemus.
" Eft autem unus dies bene et ex prxceptis tuis aiftus, peccanti imrnoi talitati antc-
" ponendus." See Cicero Tufciil. Difput. lib. ii. cap. 4 et 5. lib. iii. cap. 3.
lib. iv. cap. 38. but efpetially ibid. lib. v. cap. 2.
(/;) " Phiiolbphia Audiiim virtutis eft." Sen. epift. 89. ct cpift. 90.
Vol. II. M lam
8 2 Pretence that no Moral Duty is taught in the Go/pel Part II.
I am far from endeavouring to dctradt from the praifes which
are jufllydue to the antient philofophers and morahils among the
Pagans. Admirable paflages are to be found in their writings.
They fpeak nobly concerning the dignity and beauty of virtue,
and the tendency it hath to promote the perfeftion and happinefs
of the human nature ; and concerning the turpitude and deformity
of vice, and the mifery that attends it. They give ufcful and
excellent dire(flions as to many particular virtues, and Ihew the
reafons upon which they arc founded, in a manner which tends
to recommend them to the efteem and practice of mankind. And
I doubt not fome of them were ufeful inftruments, under the
dircdlon and affiftance of Divine Providence, for preferving among
men an efteem and approbation of virtue, for ftrengthening and
improving their moral fenfe, and giving them, in many inftances, a
clearer difcernment of the moral reafons and differences of things.
But It will by no means follow from this, that therefore man-
kind ftood in no need of a Divine Revelation, to fct before them
a clear and certain rule of duty, in its juft extent, and enforce it
upon them by a Divine Authority. It hath been confidently af-
ferted, by thofe that extol what they call Natural Religion in op-
pofition to Revelation, that " there is no one moral virtue, which
" has not been taught, explained, and proved by the Heathen
" philofophers, both occafionally and purpofely." And that
" there is no moral precept in the whole Gofpel, which was not
" taught by the philofophers (c)." The fame thing has been
(5) BoUngbroke's Works, vol. V. p. 205, io6. 218. edit. 410.
fkid
Chap. V. but what icas taught by the P hi lo fop hers esauwied. 8 j
faid by other writers of a different charatSter, and who affert the
Divine Original and Authority of the Gofpel Revelation. The
learned Dr. Meric Cafaubon, in his preface to his tranflation of
Antoninus's Meditations, exprefles himfelf thus : " I muft needs
" fay, that if wc eftcem that natural, which natural men of beft:
" account, by the mere ftrength of human reafon, have taught
" and taken upon them to maintain as juft and reafonable, I
" know not any evangelical precept or duty, belonging to a Chri-
" ftian's pradice (even the harfheft, and thofe that fcem to or-
" dinary men mod: contrary to flefh and blood not excepted) but
" upon due fearch and examination will prove of that nature."
In like manner, another learned and ingenious writer has lately
afferted, that " there is not any one principle, or any one pracftice
" of morality, which may not be known by Natural Reafon with-
" out Revelation. By Reafon we may come at a certainty of the
" Exiftence of God, and of his Providence, his Juftice, Mercy,
" and Truth : by that we may trace out our duty to him, and
" may difcover a future ftate of rewards and punifliments: by
" that we may come at the knowledge of fuch truths as relate
" to our neighbours, and the correfponding duties to them : what
" we are to do in focial life ; how we arc to behave towards go-
" vernors, and what obedience is to be paid in the civil ftatc :
" wherein true happincfs confills, and what it is that muft lead
" to it; and what we ought to do in our private relations. Thefe
" and fucli like points may be traced out by Natural Reafon ; nor
" do I know of any one point of duty towards God or man, but
" what reafon will fuggeft, and fupply us with proper motives to
M 2 "do
8.f Pretence that no Moral Duty is taught in the Go//'el Part II.
" do it (/')." lie afterwards obferves, that " as the powers of
" Reafon are fufficicnt in themkh'es to difcover all and every
" duty, and likewife to difcover proper and fufficient motives to
" do them, Revelation may add many more ; and if fo, it muft
" be deemed by them that have it a fingular advantage (q)."
We fee here, that this learned writer aflerts, that the powers of
Reafon alone, without any afiiftance from Revelation, are fuiH-
cient to difcover all and every duty towards God, our neighbours,
and ourfelves, and alfo to fupply proper and futficient motives to
do them : and all that he leaves to Divine Revelation, is not to
make a difcovery of any part of our duty, but only to furniHi
feme additional motives to duty, befides what the light of our
own unaflillcd Reafon is able of itfclf to difcover. I readily
allow, that if Revelation did no more than this, it would }'et be
of great advantage to thofc that have it, and what they ought to
be very thankful to the Divine Goodnefs for. But I cannot think
this is all the benefit we have by Divine Revelation, and that it
gives us no knowledge or information with refpe(5l to any part of
the duty required of us, but what the light of Natural Reafon
was able clearly and certainly to difcover, and adlually did dif-
cover, by its own unairifted flrength. I join with the learned
Dodlor in the declaration he makes, that " there can be no furer
" way of knowing what Reafon can difcover, and what not, than
" by examining what proficiency was adtually made in moral
(/i) Dr. Sykes'i Principles and Connection of Natural and Revealed Rcligiorv,
p. io8, 109.
(j) Ibid. p. iiQ,
*' knowlcdgCj
Chap. V. but ivhat li-as taught by the PhUofophers examined. 85
" knowledge, by thofe who lived where Revelation was un-
" known (r)." Let us therefore put it to this iflue. But then it
is to be obferved, that there is one capital mirtake, which runs
through all that this very ingenious and able writer, and others of
the fame fentiments, have advanced on this head ; and that is,
that they take it for granted, that whatever the Heathen moralifls
and philofophers have taught with regard to religion, or any part
of duty, they difcovered it merely by an effort of their own rea-
fon, without any light derived from Revelation at all. But tiiij
is impoflible for tliem to prove. There is jufl ground to believe,
as has been fliewn, that the kno .vledge of the one true God, the
Creator of the World, and of the main principles of rehgion and
morality, were originally communicated by Divine Revelation to
the firft parents and anceftors of the human race, and from them
tranfmitted to their defccndants ; fome traces of which flill con-
tinued, and were never utterly extinguilhed in the Heathen world.
Befides which, the chief articles of moral duty were delivered and
promulgated with a moft amazing folemnity, by an exprefs Di-
vine Revelation, to a whole nation, and committed to writine,
before any of thofe philofophers, who are fo much admired,
publiftied their moral difcourfcs. And it is well known, that
many of thofe great men travelled into countries bordcrinp-
upon Judea, in order to gain knowledge, efpccially in matters of
religion and morality. And thofe of that nation were pretty early
fpread abroad in fcvcral parts of the Pagan world. This learned
(r) Dr. Sjkes's Piincii>les and Connection of Natural nnd Revealed Religion,
p. lop.
authce:
%6 The Sentiments of the Philofophers Part II.
author himfelf acknowledges, that the wifeft men in Greece tra-
velled into Egypt, that they might come at the knowledge of the
ynity of God j fo that they did not attain merely by the force of
their own unaflifted reafon to the knowledge of that which he
himfelf affirms to be the fundamental principle of all morality (f ).
To which it may be added, that fomc of the mofl eminent of thofe
philofophers were fenfible of the great need they ftood in of a
Divine Afliftance, to lead them into the right knowledge of re-
ligion and their duty, and frequently take notice of anticnt and
venerable traditions, to which they refer, and which they fuppofe
to have been of divine original.
But if we fliould grant that they had all which they taught in
relation to religion and morals purely by their own reafon, it is far
from being true that there is not any one evangelical precept, or
point of moral duty, taught and enforced in the Gofpcl, that was
not taught by the Heathen philofophers. I fliall at prefent only
inftance in one, which is of very great importance : it is that pre-
cept mentioned by our Saviour, " Thou flialt worfliip the Lord
*' thy God, and him only flialt thou fervc." Matt. iv. lo. The
philofophers were univerfally wrong, both in conforming them-
felves, and urging it as a duty upon the people to conform in their
religious worfliip, to the rites and laws of their fcveral countries,
by which polytheifm was eftablifhed, and the public worlhip was
{s) Dr. Sykts's Principles and Connexion of Natural and Revealed Religion,
p. 383-
z diredcd
Chap. V. were not Lcjzas obHgatory upon Mankind. %-j
directed to a multiplicity of deities. This was a grand defcA, and
fpread confufion and error through that part of duty which re-
lates to the exercifes of piety towards God, which fome of the
philofophefs themfclves acknowledged to be an cflential branch of
morality. I fliall have occafion afterwards, in the courfc of this
work, to take notice of fome other evangelical precepts which were
not taught by the philofophers.
But, not to infift upon this at prefent, I would obferve, that it
cannot reafonably be pretended, that a complete fyftem of mo-
rality, in its juft extent, and without any material defedl, is to be
found in the writings of any one philolbpher, or fedl of philo-
fophers. The utmoft that can be alledged with any fhew of rea-
fon is, that there is no one moral duty prefcribed in the Gofpel,
but which may poffibly be found in the writings of fome or other
of the antient Pagan philofophers. But if this were fo, what ufe
or force could this be fuppofed to have with refpeft to the people,
or the bulk of mankind ? muft they be put to feck out their duty
amidft the fcattered volumes of philofophers and moralifts, and to
pick out, every man for himfelf, that which fcemeth to him to
be the bed in each of them ? Or, if any one philofopher ftiould
undertake to do it for the people, and feledt out of them all a
fyftem of morals, which in his opinion would be a complete rule
of duty, upon what foundation could this pafs for a code of laws,
obligatory on all mankind, or even on any particular nation or
pcrfon, unlefs enforced by fome fuperior authority ? Mr. Locke
has exprelTed this fo happily, that I cannot give my fcnfe of it
better
SS The Sentiments of the Philofophen Part II.
better than in his words. Speaking of moral precepts, he faith,
" Suppofing they may be picked up liere and there, fome from
" Solon and Bias in Greece, others from Tully in Italy, and to
" complete the whole, let Confucius as far as China be con-
" fulted, and Anacharfis the Scythian contribute his fliare ;
" what will all this do to give the world a complete morality,
" that may be to mankind the unqueftionable rule of life and
" manners ? Did the faying of Ariflippus or Confucius give it
" an authority ? Was Zeno a lawgiver to mankind ? If not,
" what he or any other philofopher delivered was but a fliying
" of his. Mankind might hearken to it or rejedt it as they
" pleafed, or as fuited their interefts, paffions, inclinations, or
" humourSj if they were under no obligation [t)"
Let us fuppofe that the lelTons and inflrudlions given by philo-
fophers and moralills, with rcfpeft to any particular duty, appear
to be fit and reafonable, this is not alone fufficient to give them a
binding force. A thing may appear to be agreeable to reafon,
and yet there may be inducements and motives on the other fide,
which may keep the mind fufpended, exxept there be an higher
authority to turn the fcale. The obfervation which Grotius ap-
plies to a particular cafe, holds of many others. That " that
" which has Icfs utility is not merely for that reafon unlawful :
" and it may happen that a more confiderable utility may be
(/) Locke's Rcafoinblenefs of Chiiftianiry. Sec his Woiks, vol. II. p. 533.
edit. 3d.
" oppofcd
Ch ap. V. ivere not Laws obligatory upon Mankind. 89
" oppofcd to that which we have in view, whatever we fuppofe it
" to be. — Neque enim quod minus utile eft ftatim iUicitum eft,
" adde quod accidere poteftj ut huic qualicunque utilitati alia
" major utilitas repugnet (w)." In matters of practice, a thing
may leem to be reafonable, and yet cannot be proved to be cer-
tainly and neceflarily obligatory. So much may be And in oppo-
fition to it, as may very mucli weaken the force of what is offered
to recommend it : and a prevailing appetite, or worldly intereft,
has often a great influence on the mind, and hinders it from-
pafling an impartial judgment. But a Divine Revelation, clearly
afcertaining and determining our duty in thofe inftances, in plain
and exprefs terms, and enforcing it by a Divine Authority, and
by fandions of rewards and punifliments, would decide the point,
and leave no room to doubt of the obligation. A noble author,
fpeaking of the philofopherSj faith, that " fome few particular
" men may difcover, explain, and prefs upon others the moral
" obligations incumbent upon all, and our moral ftate be littler
" improved (x)." And therefore he lays the principal ftrefs upon'
the inftitutions of civil laws and governments, and the various'
punilhments which human juftice inflicts to enforce thofe laws.
But how little fitted thofe inftitutions are to enforce morality and"
virtue, taken in its true notion and proper extent, has been ah-eady
fhewn. The greatcft men of antiquity fcem to have been fenfible,
that neither bare reafon and philofophy, nor a mere human
(tt) Grotius de Jure Belli et Pads, lib. ii. cap. 5. ftrt, 12.
{x) Bolingbroke's Works, Vol. V. p. 480;
Vox. II. N author it y^,
po The Sciil'iiiJCJits of the Philofophers Part II.
authority, is fufficient to bind laws upon mankind. Accordingly,
the laft mentioned author, who was eminent for his political
knowledge, has obferved, that " the mofl: celebrated philofophers
" and lawgivers did enforce their doctrines and laws by a Divine
" Authority, and call in an higher principle to the afliftance of
" philofophy and bare reafon. He inftances in Zoroafter, Ho-
" llanes, the Magi, Minos, Numa, Pythagoras, and all thofe
" who framed and formed religions and commonwealths, who
" made thefe pretenfions, and pafTed for men divinely infpired and
" com miflioned (_)•)." And thefe pretenfions, though not vouched
by fufficient credentials, gave their laws and inflitutions a force
with the people, which otherwife they would not have had. But
as the feveral fedls of philofophers in fucceeding ages, among the
Greeks and Romans, only flood upon the foot of their own rea-
foning, and could not pretend to a Divine Authority, this very
much weakened the effedl of their moral leiTons and precepts.
And, indeed, the beft and wifcft amongfl: them acknowledged
on feveral occafions the need they flood in of a Divine Revelation
and Inflrudion. That the philofophers in general laid no great
weight with the people, appears from what is obferved in the
lirfl volume of this work, chap lo. To which it may be added,
that Cicero, after having given the liighefl encomiums on phi-
lofophy, efpecially as the befl guide in morals, adds, that " it is
" fo far from being efleemed and praifed, according to what it
*' merits of human life, that it is by the moft of mankind ncg-
{y) Bolingbroke's Works, Vol. V, p. 227-
" Ic(fled,
Chap. V, IV ere not Laws obligatory upon Mankind. cfi
" ledted, and by many even reproached. — Philofophia quidem
" tantum abed, ut proinde ac de hominum eft vita merita,
" laudetur, ut a plerifque neglefta, a multis etiam vitupere-
« tur (z)."
(z) Tufcul. Difput. lib. v. cap. 2. p. 344. edit. Davis.
N 2 CHAP.
g2 Many of the Fhilofophen "jsere ivrong Part 11.
CHAP. VI.
Many of the philofophers loere fundamentally ivroig in the frf
principles of morah. They denied that there are any moral dif-
ferences of things founded in nature and reafon, and refohed
them wholly into human laws and cujloms. ObJ'ervations on thofe
philofophers who made mans chief good confiji in pleafure, and
propofed this as the highejl end of morals, without any regard to
a Divine Law. The moral Jy^em of Epicurus confidered. His
high pretences to virtue examined. The inconfiflency of his prin-
ciples Jliewn, and t hat y if purfued to their genuine confequences,
they are really defru£live of all virtue and good morals.
MORAL philofophy, properly fpeaking, lud its beginning
among tlie Greeks with Socrates. Cicero fays, " he was
*' the firfl that called down philofophy from heaven, and intro-
" duced it into cities and private houfes, and obliged it to make
" life and manners the fubjedt of its enquiries. — Primus philo-
*' fophiam devocavit a coelo, et in urbibus collocavit, et in do-
" mus etiam introduxit, et coegit de vita et moribus, rebufque
" bonis et malis quaerere {a)." Not that he was the firfl: philo-
fopher that ever treated of morals, but, as the fame great man elfe-
where obferves, Socrates was the firft that, quitting abflirufe difqui-
fitions into natural things, and curious fpeculations. about the hea-
venly bodies (which had principally employed all the philofophers
ia) Tufcul. Difput. lib. v. c.ip. 4.
before
Chap. VI. /« the fundamental Prindpki of Morah. 513
before him) as being things too remote from our knowledge, or,
if known, of little ufe to diredt men's conduft, brought philo-
fophy into common life, and made virtues and vices, things good
and evil, tlie only objedl of his philofophy {b). From his time
the fcience of morals was cultivated. All the different fcfts of
philofophers treated of morality, but they went upon very different
principles.
Some of the philofophers were wrong in the very fundamental
principles of morals. And fince the foundation was wrong, they
could not build upon it a proper fyflem, nor be depended upon
for leading mankind into right notions of their duty. Such were
thofe who maintained, that nothing is juft or unjufl by nature,
but only by law and cuflom. This was the opinion, as Laertius
informs us, of Theodorus, Archelaus, Ariftippus, and others.
This way alfo went Pyrrho, and all the fceptic?, who denied
that any thing is in itfelf, and by its own nature, honed; or dif-
honeft, bafe or honourable, but only by virtue of the laws and
cufloms which have obtained among men : for which they are
defervedly expofed by Epidletus (c). Plato reprefents it as a
fafhionable opinion, which very much prevailed in his time, and
was maintained and propagated by many that were efteemed wife
men and philofophers, " That the things which are accounted
(/') Academic, lib. i. cap. 4,
(c) Epi(flet. DifTert. lib. ii. cap. 20. fnft. 6. Our modern fceptics, as well as
the antient, fet themftlvcs to fliew the uncertainty of morals. Mr. Bayle has many
paflTages which look that way. And this particularly is what the author of a late
remarkable traft, intituled, Lc Pyrrhonifnjc du Sage, has attempted to flicw.
" juft,
94, ^i<in'j of the Vhilofophen "were 'wrong Part II.
" juft, are not lb by nature : for that men are always differing
*' about them, and making new conftitutions : arid as often as
" they are thus conftituted, they obtain authority, being made
" juft by art and by the laws, not by any natural force or
" virtue {d)."
Thus did many of the philofophcrs refolve all moral obligations
into merely human laws and conftitutions, making them the only
meafure of right and wrong, of good and evil. So that if the
people had a mind to be inftrudled, what they fliould do or for-
bear, they fent them to the laws of their feveral countries, and
allowed them to do whatfoever was not forbidden by thofe laws.
And in this thofe philofophers agreed with the politicians. When
Alcibiadcs afkcd Pericles, What is law ? he anfwercd, That all
thofe are laws which are prefcribed with the confent and approba-
tion of the people, declaring what things ought to be done, or
ought not to be done : and intimated, that whatfoever things are
appointed by legal authority, are to be regarded as good, and not
evil (t'). And indeed Socrates himfelf, and the moft celebrated
philofophers and moralifts, thoi^h they acknowledged a real
foundation in nature for the moral differences of things, yet every-
where inculcate it as a neceftary ingredient in a good man's cha-
radler, to obey without referve the laws of his country. But
what uncertain rules of morality the civil laws and conftitutions
are, and that they might often lead men into vicious and im-
(d) Plato do Leg. lib. x. Oper. p. (166. C. edit. Lugd.
(*•) Xcuoph. Mcinor. Socr. lib. i. cap. i. fcit. .'^2.
Chap. VI. in the fundamental Principles of Morals. ^j
moral pradices, fufficiently appears from what hath been aheady
obferved.
Some of the philofophers, as Laertius tells us of Theodoriis,
declared without difguife, that " a wife man might, upon a fit
" occafion, commit theft, adultery, and facrilege, for that none
" of thefe things are bafe in their own nature, if that opinion
" concerning them be taken away which was agreed upon for
" the fake of reftraining fools." Tov (nra^oiiov y.xi-\iiv te -^ {jloi-
'yivaiivt >i lepoavXriasiv-) tv x.xtpuy fAvS'h yap hvcci tutcov at^^ov (pi><rg/>
Trii Itt' dvroTi S'o^vi aiPojJ.iV'nit % avyy.snxi svex.ix rvi rcov aippovuv cu-
yo^rii (/). Ariftippus, who alfo held that " nothing is by nature
" juft, or honourable, or bafe, but by law and cuftom," yet is
pleafed to declare, that a prudent man will not do an abfurd
thing, B^h' droTov, any thing out of the common ufage, becaufe
of the dangers it might bring upon him, and the cenfures it might
expofe him to [g). And how weak a tie this would be to a man
that had nothing elfe to reftrain him, I need not take pains to
{hew. It is evident that, upon this fcheme of things, there caa
be no fuch thing as confcience, or a fixed notion of virtue. It
opens a wide door to licentioufnefs, and to the perpetrating all "
manner of vice and wickednefs without fcruple, if they can but
efcape public notice, and the punifliment of human judicatories.
What fine inftrudors in morals were thofe philofophers who taught
fuch maxims !
(/) Diog. L.aert. lib. ii. ftgm. 09.
(») Ibid. fegm. 98.
Among
^6 The Morality of Epicurus conjidered. Part IK
Among tliofe antient philofophers who were wrong in the fun-
damental principles of morals, they may be juflly reckoned who
laid this down as the foundation of their moral fyftem, that a
man's chief good confifts in fenfual pleafure, and that this is- the
fupreme end he is to propofe to himfelf, to which every thing elfe
fhould be fubordinate. There is a remarkable paffagc of Cicero
in his firft book of laws relating, to this fubjed:, in which he re-
prefents pleafure as an enemy within us, " which being intimately
" complicated with all the fenfes, lays all kinds of fnares for our
" fouls : that it hath a. femblance of good or happinefs, but is
" really the author of evils : and that being corrupted by its
" blandifhments, we do not fufficiently difccrn the things which are
*' in their own nature good, becaufe they want that fwectnefs and
" tickling or itching kind of fenfation it affords. — Animis omnes
" tenduntur infidia; ab ea, qua; penitus omni fenfu implicata in-
" fidet imitatrix boni voluptas, m.alorum autem autor omnium>
" cujus blanditiis corrupti quje natura bona funt, quia dulcedine
" hac et fcabie carent, non cernimus fatis (/j)." And again, fpeak-
ing of thofe who ftifly maintained that pleafure is the greateft
good, he fays, that " this feems to him to be rather the language
." of hearts than of men : — quae quidem mihi vox pccudum videtut
'• efie. non hominum (/)." Ariilippus, and his followers of the
Cyrenaic
(/') De Leg. lib. i. cap. i j.
(/■) De Parnd. cap. i . Some of our modern admirers of reafon differ very much
from Cicero in their fcntimtnts on this fubjeft. The author of Les fix Difcours
fur rilomme, faid to be written by the celebrated M. de Voltaire, who fets up as a
zealous advocate for natural religion, fays, that " nature, attcniivc to fulfil our
" dtfircs, calleth us to God by the voice of plcafures."
2 <• l.r.
Chap. VI. The Morality of Epicurus conjidered. ^j
Cyrenaic fed taught this doilrine In the grofleft fenfe, and with-
out difguife. They held corporeal pleafure to be our ultimate
end;
" La nature attentive a remplir nos defirs,
" Nous rapelle au Dieu par le voix des plaifirs."
At this rate, men will be apt to regard all their inclinations and appetites, as' the
fignifications of the will of God concerning the duties he rcquireth of them. This
is alio the prevailing maxim of the author of the famous book De I'Efprit, who
obferves, that " fince pleafure is the only obje£l which men feck after, all .that is
" necelTary to infpire them with a love of virtue is to imitate nature. Pleafure
" pronounces what nature wills, and grief or pain fhews what nature forbids,
" and man readily obeys if. The love of pleafure, againft which men, more re-
" fpe<ffable for their probity than their judgment, have declaimed, is a rein, by
" which the paffions of particular perfons may be always direifted to the general
" good. — Si le plaifir efl I'uniquc objet de la recherche des hommes, pour lui
" infpirer Tamour de la vertu, il ne faut qu' imiter la nature : le plaifir en annonce
" les volontes, le doulcur les defenfes ; et I'homme lui obeit avec docilite.
" L'amour du plaifir, contre lequel fe font eleves des gens d'une probitc plus re-
" fpeiftable qu' eclaircee, eft un frcin, avec lequel on peut toujours diriger au bi^n
" general les paffions des particuliers." De I'Efprit, difc. 3. chap. 16. tome II.
p. 67. edit. Amlf. And what kind of pleafure he intends, dearly appears from
the latter end of the 13th chapter of his 3d difcourfe, where he fays, that " there
" are only two kinds of pleafures : the pleafures of the fenfes, and the means of
" obtaining them ; which maybe racked among pleafures; becaufe the hope of
" pleafure is the beginning of pleafure." And this is .agreeable to the general
fcheme of his book, which goes upon this principle, that phyfical fenfibility is the
fource of all our ideas, and that man is not capable of any other motive to deter-
mine him than the pleafures of the fenfes : and thefe are all exprefly reduced by
him to love, the love of women. And he makes the perfeiflion of legiflation to
confifl in exciting men to the nobleft aflions, by fomenting and gratifying thofe
fcnfual paffions. He fays, " If the pleafure of love be the moft lively and vigorous
" of all human pleafures, what a fruitful fource of courage is contained in this
" pleafure ? and what ardor for virtue may not the love of women infpire ?" Ibid,
tome II. difc. 3. chap. 15. p. 51. And accordingly he pleads for gallantry in a
nation where luxury is necefiary (and it is well known, that under the name of
gallantry, efpecially in that nation to which this gentleman belongs, is compre-
hended an unlawful commerce with married women). He thinks, " that it is not
" agreeable to policy to regard it as a vice in a moral fcnfe : or, if they will call it a
Vol. II. O " vice.
^8 The Mcrallty of Epicurus confidcreJ. Part II.
end J that pleafure which adually moves and ftrikes the Icnfes :
and they roundly aflirmed, that the pleafures of the body are
much better than thofe of the foul, and its pains and griefs mutii
" vice, it muft be acknowledged that there «re vices which are ufcful in certain
" ages and countries." And to fay that ihofe vices are ufeful in cenain countries,
is, according to his fcheine, to fay, that in thofe countries they are virtues : for
he holds, that every a<fVion ought to be called virtuous, which is advantageous to
the public. " C'eft une inconfcquence politique que de regarder la galanteric,
" comme un vici moral : et fi Ton veut lui conferver le nom de vice, il faut con-
" venir, qu'il en tft d'utilcs dans certains fiecles, et certains pays." Ibid, tome I.
difc. 2. chap. 15. p. 176. et feq.
The author of Le Difcours fur la Vie Heureufe, printed at the end of Penfees
Philofophiqucs, carries it Itill farther. The defign of that whole trcatife is to rtiew,
that happinefs confilb only in fenfual pleafure, and in the gratification of the fleflily
appetite, and that wifdom confifts in purfuing it. From this principle, that the
aftual pleafurable fenfation of the body is the only true happinefs, he draws con-
clufions worthy of fiich a principle: that " we ought to take care of the body
" before the foul ; to cultivate the mind only with a view to procure more ad-
' vantages for the body, to deny ourfelvcs nothing that can give us pleafure; to
" ufe nature (by which he means the bodily appetites) as a guide to reafon." It is
T10 wonder then that he aflerts, that " the law of nature direfts us to give up
" truth to the laws, rather than our bodies; and that it is natural to treat virtue
" in the fame way as truth. — Des lors il faut fonger au corps, avant que de fonger
" a I'ame; ne cultiver fon ame, que pour procurer plus de cominodites a fon
" corps ; ne point fe priver de cc que fait plaifir ; donner a la raifon la nature
" pour guide. La loi de la nature ditfle de leur [i. e. aux loix des hommcs]
" livrer plutot la verite que nos corps; il eft naturel de traitcr la vertu comme de
" la verite ♦." Such is the morality taught by fome of our pretended maftcrs of
reafon in the prtfent age, who are too wife to be guided by Revelation, and ex-
prefs a contempt for thofe, as weak and fuperftitious perfons, who are for govern-
ing themfelves by its facred rules. It can hardly be thought too fevere a cenfure
to fay, that the principal reafon of their endeavouring to difcard the Gofpel is,
that they may be freed from the rcftraints it lays upon their fenfual and depraved
paflions, and that they may be left loofe in matters of morality, to follow their own
inclinations, and to do whatfoever their appetites would prompt ihem to.
• Difcours fur U Vie Heurtufc, t Potfdam i-ifi. p. 34. Sec L'.Al'bc Cjuchct Lctins Critiques.
worfc.
Chap. "\"I. the MoviiUts of Epicurus conjidercd. ' 9^
worfe. See Laert. lib. ii. fegm. 87 et 90. Epicurus, tvho held
the fame principle, that pleafurc is the chief good and higheft:
end of man, endeavoured to explain it fo as to fliun the odious
confequences which are charged upon it. His morality was
highly extolled by fome of the antients, and has had very learned
apologifts among the moderns, fome of whom have not fcrupled
to prefer it to that of any other of the Heathen philofophers. It
is neceflary, therefore, in confidering the fyftems of tlie Pagan
moralifts, to take particular notice of that of Epicurus, that we
may fee whether it defcrves the encomiums which have been fo
liberally beftowed upon it. And I cannot help thinking, that;
whatever plaufible appearances it may put on, yet if we take
the whole of his fcheme together, and impartially confider it in
its proper connexion and natural confequences, we fliall find it
deftrudlive of true virtue.
It is evident that there is one eflential defedt which runs through
his whole fyftem of morality, and that is, that it had no regard
to the Deity, or to a Divine Authority or Law : the gods' he owns
(for he does not fpeak of one Supreme God) were fuch as lived
at eafe, and without care, in the extra-mundane fpaces, and exer-
cifed no infpedion over mankind, nor ever concerned themfelves
about their adions and affairs. There was therefore no room
upon liis fcheme for the exercife of piety towards God, a fub-
miflion to his authority, and refignation to his will, or for a de-
pendance upon Providence, and a religious regard to the Divine
favour and approbation. It is true, that Epicurus writ books
O 2 about
10(5 The Morality of Epicurtn conjidcred. Part. IT.
about piety and fandlity {k), for which he is defcrvedly ridiculed
by Cotta in Cicero (/). And Epiftetus obferves concerning the
Epicureans, that " they got themfelves made prieils and prophets
" of gods, which, according to them, had no exiftence, and
" confulted the Pythian pricftefs, only to hear what in their
" opinion were falflioods, and interpreted thofe oracles to others."
This he calls a monftrous impudence and impoflure (w).
As to that part of morality which relates to the duties we owe
to mankind, in this alfo the fcheme of Epicurus, at leaft if pur-
fued to its genuine confequences, was greatly defective. He
taught, that a man is to do every thing for his own fake : that
he is to make his own happinefs his chief end, and to do all in
his power to fecure and preferve it. And he makes happinefs to
confift in the mind's being freed from trouble, and the body fronx
pain. Accordingly, it is one of his maxims, that " bufinefs and
" cares do not conlirt; with happinefs." — 'Ou avij.(f'jivZ(n tt^o.-) ux-
Ttiau ^ (f^ovTiSei /JLay-xQ/oTiiTi («). According to this fcheme of
principle, no man ought to do any thing that would expofe hini
(*) Laert. lib. x. fcg. z~.
(/) De Nat. Deor. lib. i. cap. 41. It is a little furprizing, th.it fo great a m:.n
ns Gaflendus, among the many fine thii>gs he fays of Epicurus, has thought fit to
mention his difintcrcfled piety, and filial affeflion towards the Divine Nature.
What he offers on this head is e.xtremcly weak, and is a rcmarlvablc inftance of
what may be often obfervcd, that when learned men have undertaken an hypo-
thefis, they fecm rcfolvcd at any rate to defend it. See Gaflcnd. de Vita ct Mori-
bus Epicuri, lib. iv. tap. 3.
(m) Epi(flct. DilTert. book ij. chap. 20. kCi. 2, 3, 4-
{n) Lacrt. lib. x. fegm. 77.
to
Chap. yi. The Morality of Epicurus covfidered. ,ioi
to trouble and pain, or give him dillurbancc : and therefore he
ought not to run any hazard, or expofc himfelf to fufferings, for
the public good, for his friend, or for his country. I know that
he fometimes exprefles himfelf in a different drain. But this is
the natural confequence of his avowed principles. And there-
fore Epifletus charges him with having mutilated all the offices
of a mafter of a family, of a citizen, and of a friend. He ob-
ferves, that, from a dcfire of fliunning all uneafinefs, Epicurus
diffuaded a wife man from marrying and breeding up children;
becaufe he was fenfible, riiat if once a child is born, it is no longer
in a parent's power not to be follicitous about it. For the fame
reafon he fays, that a wife man will not engage himfelf in public
bufinefs, or meddle with the affairs of the commonwealth {o).
His own praftice was fultable to it, for he loved an eafy and re-
tired life. But, as Epidletus there obferves, many of the Epi-
curean?, though they talked at this rate, both married and en-
gaged in public alfairs.
Let us now come to that part of Epicurus's morals, which has
the fairefl appearance, and which has prejudiced many perfons in ,
his favour. He has given excellent lelfons of moderation, tem-
perance, patience, meeknefs, and forgivenefs of injuries, and even
continence with regard to venereal pleafures. He reprefents the
inconveniences of indulging them in ftrong terms. He declares,
" that when he makes pleakire the chief end, he does not mean
(o) Diflcrt. bookii. chap. 20. fet^. 3. and ibid, book i. cliap. 3. and book iii,
chap. 7. See alfo Lacit. lib. x. fcgm. 119.
" tha
102 7he Morality of Epicurus confiJercJ. Part II.
" the pleafures of the luxurious, as ignorant perfons, and thole
" that do not rightly underftand his lentiments, fuppofe : but
" principally the freedom of the body from pain, and of the mind
" from anguilh and perturbation. For, fays he, it is not drink-
" ing or revelling, nor the enjoyment of boys and women, nor tlie
" feafting upon fifli, and the other things that a fumptuous table
" furnidieth, which procure a pleafant life, but fober reafon,
" which fearcheth into the caufes of things, why and how far
"■ thev arc to be chofcn or avoided, and teacheth us to cafl out
" thofe opliiions which fill the foul with perturbation and tu-
" mult." He adds, that " the principle of all thefe things is
" prudence (/•)•" What the opinions are that he thinks incon-
Jirtent with happinefs or tranquillity, will be ((^cn afterwards ; at
prefent I fliall only obferve, that he here openly declares, that the
pleafures he intends are not thofe of luxury and excefs, as many
are apt to fuppofe, but fuch as are under the condudl of reafon
and prudence. He frequently fpeaks in high terms of virtue,
and the happinefs which attends it. It was one of his maxims,
or y.vo\xi So^aiy that " it is not poflible for any man to live
" pleafantly, unlefs he lives prudently, and honeftly, and juftly :
" nor can he live prudently, honeftly, and juftly, without living
" pleafantly (q) :" and that " virtue is infcparable from a happy
" life (r)." He often recommends frugality and temperance,
and tlie being content with a little : and fays, that a fimple meal
(p) Laeit. lib. X. fegm. iS.
(j) Ibid. fcgm. 132 ct 140.
(r) Ibid. fcgm. 131, 132.
Chap. VI. The Morality of Epicurus ccnfidcred. 1 03
is equal to a fumptuous feaft : and that coarfe bread and water
yields the greateft plealure to a man that takes it when he needcth it.
And it is laid by Cicero, Seneca, and other antient authors, that
Epicurus himfelf lived a fober and temperate life, and took up with
flender fare. So that thofe who allow themfelves in unbounded
gratifications of their appetites, and make pleafure to confifl: in
licentioufnefs and exccfs, carry it much farther than Epicurus did,
and cannot juftly avail themfelves of his autiiority.
But notwithftanding all that can be alledged in favour of Epi-
curus, his fcheme of morality appears to be wrong at the very
foundation. The virtue he prefcrlbes is refolved ultimately into
a man's own private convenience and advantage, without regard
to the excellence of it in its own nature, or to its being com-
manded or required of us by God : for, as has been already
hinted in his fyftem of morals, there is no refpedt had to a divine
law. The friendfliip of Epicurus, and his followers, has been
highly extolled, and propolcd as a model ; and yet, according to
him, frienddiip, as well as juflice and fidelity, is to be obferved
and exercifed, only becaufe of the profit or pleafure which it pro-
cures us. So it is that Torquatus the Epicurean argues, in
Cicero's firft book De Finibus Bonorum ct Malorum. He fays
the fame thing of temperance : and blames luxury and effe-
minacy, becaufe they who indulge it, being allured by prefent
pleafures, expofe themfelves to greater pains, difeafes, 5cc. after-
wards. It is one of Epicurus's maxims, as it was alfo of the
Cyrenaics, that no pleafure is in itfclf an evil, but tlic things that
arc the caufes of fomc pleafure, bring on many more tioubles
than
iGi}, TZv Morality of Epicurus ccnfidcreJ. Part II.
than pleal'uies (j) j where he feems to blame no pleafures as evil,
except on account of the greater troubles to which they expofe the
man that indulges them. Agreeably to this maxim, he fays,
" A wife man will not have carnal commerce with any woman
" uhich the law forbids him to touch (/)." So that he makes
the laws, i. c. the laws of the country where a man lives, and a
man's own convenience, the only meafure of continence : and in
cffedt allows a man to indulge himfelf in any pleafures or gratifi-
cations, which are not prohibited by the laws, provided he does
not run into fuch ex'cefles in thofe pleafures as may hurt himfelf.
Epicurus, therefore, if he had lived in Perfia, would have had no
objedlion to the inceftuous mixtures there allowed by the laws.
At Athens, where he dwelt, adultery was forbidden under fevere
penalties, he would not therefore, according to his principles,
touch married women. ButLeontium, a philofophical Athenian
courtezan, was miftrefs both to him and his intimate friend and
companion Metrodorus («). Other millreffcs of his are men-
tioned (a.-). Some authors, indeed, contend, that thefe Tories
were forged by his enemies, and extol his continence and cha-
flity : but I do not fee that Epicurus, upon liis principles, could
have any fcruple about thofe pradlices as vicious, though he might
abflain from them on other confiderations. It may not be im-
proper here to take notice of a remarkable pallage in his book
(/) Laert. lib. x. fcgm. 141.
(/) Ibid, fegtn. n8.
(k) Ibid. fcgm. 6 ct 23.
(a.) Sec Mcnagius's Obfcrvatlons on Lautiui, p. 448. cJit. WtH.
3 nfp)
Chap. VI. The Morality of Epicurus conftdertj. 105
X\io\ I'iKm, de fine, in which he fays, that he " cannot undcrftand
" what good there is, if we take away the pleafures which are
" perceived by the tafte, thofe which arife from venereal gratifica-
" tions, thofe that come in by the ears, and the agreeable emo-
" tions which are excited by the fight of beautiful forms." This
paflage is mentioned by his great admirer Laertius, who repre-
fents it as urged againfl: Epicurus by thofe that endeavoured to ca-
lumniate him ( j). But he does not deny, that it was really to be:
found in that book, which was accounted one of the beft of his
treatifes. It is alfo produced more fully by Athenaeus (2;), and bv
Cicero, who often refers to it. p]e gives a fine tranflation of it in
the third book of his Tufculan Difputations, cap. 18. p. 224.
where Dr. Davis's note upon it may be confulted. And he elfe-
where gives the fenfe of it thus : " Nee intelligere quidcm fe pofTe
" ubi fit, et quid fit ullum bonum, pra:ter illud quod fenfibus cor-
" porcis, cibis, potioneque, formarum afpcdlu, aurium delecflatione,
" et obfcaena vokiptate percipitur {a)." The fame great author
charges Epicurus with maintaining, that all the pleafures and do-
lours of the mind belong to the pleafures and pains of the body;
and that there is no joy of the mind, but what originally arifes
fi-om the body {b). Though at the fame time he faid, that the
pleafures and pains of the mind are more and greater than thofe
(^) Laert. lib. x. fcgra. 6.
(z) Deipnof. lib. vii. p. 208. et lib. xii. p. 546.
(<i) De Finib. lib. ii. cap. 3. And fee Davis's note.
(A) De Finib. lib. i. cap. 17.
Vol. II. P of
io6 The Morality of Epicurus conftdercd. Part II.
of the body J in which he diftered from Ariflippus and the Cy-
renaics.
To let us farther into Epicurus's fclieme of morals, it may be
obferved, that though he forbids injuftice and other great crimes,
it feems to be not upon the mofl: noble and generous principles, but
for fear of human punifhments. Seneca, who, though a Stoic,
often fpeaks favourably of Epicurus, and nrjcntions many of his
moral fentences with approbation, reprefents his fenfe thus :
" Nihil juftum effe natura, et crimina vitanda elTe quia metus
" vitari non poflit {c)." — That " nothing is juft by nature, and
" that crimes are to be avoided, becaufe fear cannot be avoided :"
that is, if a man commits crimes, he cannot avoid the fear of
deteftion or punifliment. And that in this he juflly reprefents
Epicurus's fentiments, may be fairly concluded from the paflages
cited from Epicurus himfelf by Laertius, who had a high efteem
for him. In the account he gives of his Ku^/ai Jc^a/, or princi-
pal maxims, one is. That " juftice would be nothing of itfelf,
" but for the conventions or agreements men have entered into
'* in many places, not to hurt others, or be hurt by them."
And again, that " injuftice is not an evil in itfelf, n dS'iKia. » xa3-'
" iavTTv xa)t«V, but becaufe of the fear which attends it, ariling
" from a fufpicion that it cannot be hid from thofe who arc con-
" ftituted the punilhcrs of fuch things." He adds, " Let not
" that man, who fecrctly does any thing contrary to tiie conveji-
" tions men have cftablilhcd among thcmfclves, not to hurt
(f) Sen. cpifl. 97»
" other?.
Chap. VI. The Morality of Epicurus cotifidcreS, 107
" others, or be hurt by them, believe that he fliall be able to
" keep it fecret, though he has efcaped detedtion a thoufand
" times, even to this prefent : for even to the end of his life, it is
" flill uncertain whether he fliall be able to conceal it (<^).**,
Here it is plain, that the reafon he gives why a man fliould ab-
ftain from doing an unjuft thing, is not becaufe it is in itfelf evil,
but becaufe of the punishment it may expofe him to, not from
God (for all fear of this kind he rejedts as vain and fuperftitious)
but from men : either from public juflice, or private refentment
and revenge, which no man can be fure he fliall always efcape.
Accordingly, it was an advice of his, as Seneca informs us, " Do
*' every thing as if fome perfon faw thee do it ;" i. e. as if fome
man faw thee. For he denied that the gods obferve or concern
themfelves with men, or any of their adions : " Sic fac, inquit,
" tanquam fpeftet aliquis {e)" Upon thefe principles there is
no villainy which a man may not commit, if he can but perfuade
himfelf (which bad men are often apt to do) that he fliall not be
detedled or puniflied for it by men : or, as Cicero exprefles it, " ut
" hominum confcientia remota, nihil tarn turpe fit, quod volup-
*' tatis caufa non videatur efle fadurus (/)." Epiftetus fets thefe
principles of Epicurus, and their pernicious confequences, in il
ftrong light {g).
{d) Laert. lib. X. fegra. 150, 15T.
(tf) Sen. epift. 25.
(/) De Finib. lib. ii. cap. 9. p. 108. edit. Davis,
{g) Diflert. book ii. chap. 20. and book iii, chap. 7. fc(ft, i.
P 2 That
io8 The Morality of Epi citrus coiifiJereJ. Part II.
That which Epicurus valued himfelf principally upon, and for
whicli he was mightily extolled and admired by his followers,
was, that he propolcd to inftru^ll men in the nature of true happi-
•ncfs, and to diredl them to the only proper means of attaining to
it. Happinefs he made to confift, as hath been already hinted,
not merely as Ariftippus and the Cyrenaics did, in the ad:ual
motions of fenfual pleafures and gratifications, though thefe alio
he admitted, but chiefly in indolence of body and tranquillity of
mind ; i. e. that the body be freed from pain, and the mind from
trouble, both in the moit pcrfedl degree, and lb as to admit of
no increafe. This happinefs he fuppofed to be perfedly attainable
in this lifej and^ indeed, this he muft fuppofe, or that it is net
attainable at all, fnK:e he allowed no other life but this. The
Cyrenaics, in this matter, talked more realbnably than Epicurus ;
for, as they looked upon pleafure to be the chiefeft good, and
could not deny tiiat men are now fubjedt to many pains and
troubles, ibme of them afferted that it is extremely ditTicult, and
others that it is irapoflible to attain to a life of perfedl happi-
nefs {h). Nor would they allow with Epicurus, that a freedom
from pain can be accounted pleafure, and even the higheft plea-
fure (/'). And in this alio they talked more reafonably than he.
As to the means for attaining to what Epicurus accounted per-
feft happinefs, fomc of thofc he prefcribcd were certainly very
{h) Lacrt. lib. ii. fegm. 90 et 94.
(«') Ibid. fegm. 89. Sec alfoCiccro de Finib. lib. i. cap. 11. wiicrc Torquitiis
the Epicurean fays, " Oinni dolore carere, non modo voluptatcm cffc, fed hinimain
" voluptatem." Cicero expofes this veiy well, de Finib. lib. ii. cap. 5. p. 8y.
et cap. 7. p. 93. edit. Davis.
proper.
Chnp. VI. The MoruHty of Epicurus conjidered. 109
proper. He adviled to exercife fobriety, moderation, and tenr-
perance j to avoid all excefs ; not to indulge pleafure to a degree
that might bring greater evils ; not to do an unjuft thing, or any
thing that might expofe a man to punifliment ; to avoid a reftlefs
ambition J to ihwn envy and revenge, and the bitter ill-natured
paffions; and to cultivate friendfliip and benevolence. On thefe
heads Epicurus faid excellent things, and judged very rightly that
tliis was the beft way a man could take, even for his own fake,
and to fecure to himfelf an eafy and pleafant life. But his chief
recipe for happinefs was the raifing men above all fear of evil,
and thereby placing them in a ftate of perfedl tranquillity. And
diere are two things which he efpecially looked upon to be in-
coniiftent with happinefs, the fear of the gods, and the fear of
death : and he boafted that he would deliver men from both thefe.
His remedy againft the firft was to deny a Providence, or that the
gods have any concern with men, or take any notice of their af-
fairs. And it muft be acknowledged, that nothing could be
better contrived to free bad men from the terrors they might be
under from an apprehenfion of divine punifliments ; but, at the
fame time, it took away the flrongcft reftraints to vice and wicked-
nefs, and the moft folid fupport of virtue, and that which is the
principal fource of a good man's fatisfadlion and confidence under
the greateft adverfities. As to death, he would have a man ac-
cuftom himfelf to this thought, " That death is nothing to us."
He fays, '• the knowledge of this will enable him to enjoy this
" mortal life ; and that there is nothing evil or grievous in life to
" a man, who rightly apprehends that the privation of life has
" no evil in it." And the way he takes to prove his capital
maxim,
no The Morality of Epicurus confidered. Part. II.
maxim, which he {o frequently repeats, " That death is nothing
'' to us," is, becaufc " that \vhich is diflblved is void of fenfc,
" and that which is void of fenfc is notliing to us." And again,
that " whilft we live, death is not; and when death is, we are
" not [k)." As if fuch quibbles and fubtilties as thefe furnifhed
a fufficient remedy againft the natural fear of death. But if, as
Jie fays, we arc without fenfe at death, this does not prove that
death is nothing to us. For is it nothing to us to be deprived of
lift-, which he himfelf reprefents as a thing to be defired and
embraced (/) ? Since this life, according to him, is the only
feafon in which we can enjoy happinefs, how can it be faid, that
death is nothing to us, which puts an utter end to all happinefs
and enjoyment ? Is it not natural for a man that is happy to de-
fire to continue to be fo, and to be averfe to every thing that would
deprive him of it ? But Epicurus endeavours to provide againft
this, by obferving, that " a right knowledge takes away the dcfire
*' of immortality (w)." Accordingly, one of his YmoIoli So^m is
this, ** That an infinite and finite time yield an equal plcafure,
" if any man will meafure the boundaries of pleafure by reafon."
— — O aTTft^os ^^ovoi 'lanv e^a r mJ^oi'Jiij ^ Trg-tc^ac-f^jos, at' Ti'i a'uTWS
T« Tf^xra xxTa.fjL€Tpn<ra TtS T^.oyia^u («). Cicero exprefles it thus;
" Negat Epicurus diuturnitatcm temporis ad beate vivendum ali-
" quid conferre: nee minorem voluptatem percipi in brcvitatc
{k) Laert. lib. X. fegm. 124, 125. ct jjc?.
(/) Ibid. fegm. 125.
(m) Ibid. fegm. 124.
(«) Ibid. ffgm. 145.
" temporis^
M
U
Chap. VI. The Morality of Epicurus conjidcred. 1 1 1
•' temporis, quam fi ilia fit fempiterna (o)." And whether this
be confiftent with reafon, may be left to any man of common fenfc
to determine.
There is nothing more remarkable in Epicurus, than the glo-
rious pretences he makes to fortitude, and a contempt of pain.
He affirms, that though a wife man be tortured, he is ftill happy.
'Ea.v q-pi^Aoj^Tt 0 aofoi hveti dvTov lu^ ctl fxava, (/>). And that " if he
" were fliut up and burned in Phalaris's bull, he would cry out,
" How fweet is this 1 How little do I care for it 1" Cicero, who
mentions this, juftly expofes it as very abfurd and ridiculous, in
a man that made pleafure the chiefeft good, and pain the greateft
or only evil. He obfcrves, that even the Stoics themfelves, who
would not allow pain to be evil, yet owned it to be *' afperum et
** odiofum, — an harfli and odious thing ;" and did not pretend
to fay, that it is fweet to be tortured {q). But this was Epicurus's
manner. He affedled to fpeak glorioufly rather than confidently-
Cicero remarks concerning him, that " he faid many excellent
" things, but was not follicitous whether he was confident with
" himklf or not. — Multa pra^clarc facpe dicit, quam enim fibi
" conftanter convenienterque dicat, non laborat (/■)." But as he
there obferves, " we are not to judge of a philofopher by a few
(o) De Finib. lib. ii.
(/) L.iert. lib. X. fcgm. ii8.
(7) Tufcul. Difput. lib. ii. cap. 7. et lib. v. cap. 10. Sec .ilfo LaiTlanl. Div.
Inftit. lib. iii. cap. 27.
(/■) Tufcul. Difput. lib. V. cnp. 9. Sec alfo Dc Finib. lib. ii. cap. 22. et
ibid. cap. 26.
" detached
1 1 2 The Morality of Epicurui conjijcred. Part II.
" detached independent fentcnces, but by the general tenour of
" his doftrine. — Non ex fingulis vocibus philofophi fpedtandi
" font, fed ex peipctuitate atque conftantia." He faid, among
other things, that a wife man will fometlmes die for his
friend {s). A generous fentence, but not well becoming a man
\v])o refolved friendlhip, as well as every other virtue, merely
into a felfifli principle, and a regard to a man's own happinefs.
There is a remarkable paffage of Epicurus, produced by Marcus
Antoninus, which fliews his magnificent way of talking, and his
high pretences to virtue, as well as the great opinion he had of
his own wifdom and philofophy. " When I was fick (fays he)
" my converfations were not about the difeafes of this poor body,
" nor did I fpeak of any fuch thing to thofe that came to me;
" but continued to difcourfe of thofc principles of natural philo-
" fophy I had before eftabliflied ; and was chiefly intent on this,
" how the intelledual part, though it partakes of fuch violent
" commotions of the body, might remain undifturbed, and pre-
" fcrve its own proper good j nor did I allow the phylicians to
" make a noife and vaunt, as if doing fomething of great mo-
" ment; but my life continued pleafant and happy (/)." What
could the moft rigid Stoic have faid more nobly ? But certainly,
if Epicurus himfelf, fupported by his vanity, made fuch a lliew
of fortitude, the principles of his philofophy had no tendency to
infpire a contempt of pain, or a true greatnefs of foul. The
Stoics were more confident with thcmfelves. They maintained,
{s) Lacit. lib. X. fegm. I2i.
(/) Anton. McJit. book y. feiTl. 41. Clafgow tranflation.
3 tliat
chap. VI. The Morality cf Epicurus confidered. 1 1 ^
that a wife man is happy under the greatefl: pains and tortures ;
but then they fuppofed happinefs to conlift wholly in virtue,
that this is the only good, and that pain is no evil at all. Epicurus
alfo held, that a wife man may be perfedlly happy under the ex-
tremity of pain ; and yet he made happinefs confift in pleafurc,
and that the being freed from pain is a neceffary ingredient in
true happinefs. And can any thing be more abfurd and incon-
fiftent than to fuppofe that a man enjoys a complete felicity at
that very inftant when he is labouring under what, according to
his fchcme of principles, is the greatefl evil and mifery ?
I do not think there ever was a greater inftance of vain-glory,
tlian appears in Epicurus's laft letter, written by him when he
was dying to one of his friends and difciples, Idomeneus; in which
lie tells him, " that he was then pafling the laft and happicft
" day of his life : that he was under fuch tormenting pains of the
*' ftone or ftrangury («), that nothing could exceed them ; but
" that this was fully compenfated by the pleafure he found in his
" mind, arifing from the remembrance of his own philofophical
" reafonings and inventions." And what were thofe dodtrines
and inventions of his, which yielded him fuch a wonderful joy,
as rendered him completely happy under the extremeft: pains and
dying agonies ? Tlie principal of them feem to have been fuch
(«) So fomc nnderAand it : Cicero has it, pnins in his bladder and bowels,
" Tanti morbi adtr.int veflcre et virtcrum, ut nihil ad earum magnitudinem poffit
" acccdere." DcFinib. lib. ii. cap. 30.
Vol. II. Q^
as
.1 J4 ^''•'^ Mdrolity of Epicurus confuUred. Part 11
as thefe : That the world was made not by any wife dcfignjng
caufe, but by chance, and a fortuitous concourlc of atoms : that
there is no Providence which exercifes any care about mankijui :
that the foul dies with the body, and that there is no hfc after this :
that pleafure is the chief good, and pain the greatell evil. And
what comfort thefe principles could furniih in thefc circumflances,
is difficult to conceive.
This f}>ews how Air he carried that vanity to the laft, for which
he had been always fo remarkable. To his vanity it was owing,
that he was defirous to have it thought that he was himfelf his
own teacher, and learned his philofophy from no man ; though
it is generally agreed among the antients, that he borrowed the
principal things in his philofophy from others, efpecially from
Democritus (x). He affedled not to quote any authors in his
works, and exalted himfelf above the greateft men of his age, as
. if none of them were capable of directing men in the way to true
happinefs but himfelf alone. His envy at the reputation ot other
philofophers, carried him to treat fome of the mofl eminent of
them in a contemptuous and abufive manner, of which Cicero
mentions feveral inftances (_y). Plutarch obferves the fame thing
in his treatife againft Colotes, a noted difciple and follower of
Epicurus. The fame vanity, and defire of being remembered
with admiration and applaufe, appears in his laft teftamcnt j in
(a-) Cicero de Finib. lib. iv. cap. 6.
(j') De Nat. Deor. lib.i. cap. 33.
which
Ghap. Vr. The Morality of Epicurus confidcrcd, 1 15
which he ordered, that the anniverfaiy of his birth-bay fliould be
kept every year ; and that, befides this, on the twentieth day of
every month his difciples fliould meet and fenfl together, to
celebrate the memory of him and his great intimate and favourite
Metrodorus. Cicero juftly reprefents the making fuch provifions
as thefe, as a very extraordinary thing in a man who taught that
death, and what follows after it, is nothing to us (2;). But it
is plain, that though he was for extinguifliing in men " the defire
" of immortality," yet he coveted fur himfelf an immortal fame.
And thofe of his fed^ were not wanting to fatisfy that define of his
as far as was in their power. They in effedt were for making a god
of Epicurus, for delivering them from the fear of other gods ; and
vvhilft they laughed at fuperftition and enthufiafm, they themfelves
talked of Epicurus and his philofophy in the moft enthufiaftic
ftrains: " Freeing ourfelves (fays Metrodorus) from this low ter-
" reftrial life, let us rife to the truly divine orgia, or facred myfteries,
*' of Epicurus." — Ta 'E-jrixi^a w« aAwS-ws ^eofxvra o^yta. (^). The
Epicureans, as we learn from Cicero, had his image on their cups
and rings (^). And Pliny tells us, that in his time, which was three
hundred and hfty years after the death of Epicurus, they were wont
to have his im.ige or pidUue in their bed»-chambers, and carry it
about with them ; and that they continued to celebrate his birth-
day with facrificcs, and to folemnize fcafts every month to his
(z) De Fiaib. lib. ii. cap. 31. p. 176. et ftq. edit. Davis.
(a) Plut. aJveif. Colot. Opcr. toin. II. p. 1117. B. edit. Xyl.
[i) De Finib. lib. v. cap. i ,
0^2 honour
1 16 The Morality of Epicurm covfidcred. Part II.
honour {c). Numcnius obferves, tliat they never departed in the
k-ail from the principles their mafter taught, and even thought
it an impious thing to do lo, or to bring in any new tenet [d).
Laertius, his great admirer, tells us, that he was honoured by
his country with ftatues of brafs j that his friends were fo many,
that whole cities could not contain them ; that none of his dif-
ciples, except one whom he mentions, ever left him to go to
another fedl ; that the fucceflion of his fchool continued when all
the redl failed, and had fo many mafters that they could not be
numbered. He commends him for many virtues, and, among
others, for his piety and devotion towards the gods {e). And if
his other virtues were no better founded than this, they had a
/liew and appearance only without the reality. The principles
of Epicurus feem to have fpread very much in Rome in the latter
.times of the Roman republic. Many of their great men openly
avowed them. Cicero, who was no great friend to Epicurus's
philofophy, frequently reprefents his followers as very numerous
at Rome, and his philofophy as having made a great progrefs
there, and very popular (/"). Tiiis gives one no advantageous
idea of the religion and manners of that age. His principles con-
tinued to prevail under the emperors j and his followers were very
(r) Plin. Hift. Naliir. lib. xxxv. cnp. 2.
(d) Apud Eufcb. Prsepar. Evangel, lib. xiv. cap. 5.
(c) Laert. lib. x. fegra. 9, 10.
</) DcFinib. lib. i. cap. 7. lib. ii. cap. 25. Dc OHic. lib. iii. cap. ult.
zealous
Chap. VI, The Morality cj Epicurus conjiili'icd. 117
zealous to propagate their opinions, for which they are ridiculed
by Epidetus; becaule, as he obfcrves, if the^l^ principles were ge-
nerally believed, it would endanger their own peace and fafcty as
well as that of the public. Luciau informs us, that in his time
the emperor, by whom he probably means Marcus Antoninus,
allowed large falaries to the mailers of the Epicurean fchool, as
well as to thofe of the Stoics, Platonifts, and Peripatetics [g).
It appears, however, tliat the Epicureans did not every-where,
and at all times, meet with the good reception Laertius mentions.
They were expelled out of feveral cities, becaufe of the diforders
they occafioned. Plutarch fpeaks of the ■\;](pia-iJi<x.Tx € Xua-fnixx.
TTcAEiT, the reproachful decrees made by divers cities againfl
them (/'). We learn from ^lian, tliat the Romans expelled Al-
caeus and Philippus, who were Epicureans, out of the city, becaufe
they taught the young men to indulge ftrange and flagitious
pleafures. And that the republic of MefTenia in Arcadia pafTed
this cenfure upon the Epicureans, that they were the peft of the
youth, and that they ftained the government by their effeminacy
and atheifm. They enjoined them to depart their borders by fun-
fet; and when they were gone, ordered the priefts to purify the
temples, and magiflrates, and the whole city (/"). The republic
(g) Lucian. in Eunuch. Oper. torn. I. p. 841. edit. Amfl.
(/;) In his treatife Non pofTe fuavlter vivi, &c. Oper. toai. II. p. iioo. D.
edit. Xyl.
(t) JEHm. var. Hlft. lib. ix. cap. 1 2.
of
1 18 The Morality of Eficurut confidered. Part II.
of Lyftos, in the iile of Crete, drove them out of the city, and
iffued out a fcverc decree againft them, in which they called them
the contrivers of the feminine and ungenerous philofophy, and the
declared enemies of the gods ; and that if any one of them fliould-
prefume to return, he fhould be put to death in a manner wliich
was veiy ignominious as well as painful (/').
(/.) Suidas ia voce E^rixsjo;.
CHAP.
Chap. \'II. Right R.cafQ2i alom conJida-cJ-, ^c-. up
C II A P. VI L
7he fentiuicnts_ of thafe 'vcho are accounted the bejl oj the Vagan
moral philo/bphers conf.dered. They held in general^ that the
law is right rcaj'on. But reafon alone, ivithout a fuperior au-
thority^ does not lay an obliging force upon men. The ivifef
Heathens taught^ that the original of law was from God, and
that from him it derived its authority. As to the quefti&n, how
this law comes to be known to us, they fometimes reprefent it as
naturally known to all men. But the fri7icipal way of knowing
it is refolved by them into the mind and reafon of wife men, or,
in other words, into the doSirines and infiriiSiiom of the philo-
fophers. The uncertainty of this rule of morals floewn. They
talked highly of virtue in general, but differed about matters of
great importance relating to the law of nature : feme injlanccs
of which are mentiotied.
LE T us now proceed to confider the fentiments of thofe who
are generally accounted the ableft and beft of the Pagan
philofophers and moralifts. Such were Socrates, Plato, and thofe
of the old academy, Ariftotle and the Peripatetics, and above all
the Stoics, who profeiTed to carry the dodlrine of morals to the
higheft perfc<2;ion. *
It was a general maxim among the philofophers, and which
frequently occurs in their writings, that the law is right reafon.
So Plato, Cicero, Seneca, Plutarch, .and others. But properly
fpeaking,
120 Right Reafon alone ccnfulevcd Part II.
fpeaking, right reafon is not a law. Reafon as fuch only counfels,
advifcs, and demonftrates, but does not command : nor doth it
lay perfons under an obligation or rertraint of law, but by the
interpofition of a fuperior authority. Mr. Scldcn has argued this
matter very well, in his firft book De Jure Nat. et Gent, in the
feventh and eighth chapters. He (hews, that antecedently to
men's being formed into fociety, no man can be fo obliged by
the reafon of another man, who is only fuppofed to be naturally
his equal, nor by the reafon of all other men who arc his equals,
nor by his own reafon, as not to have it in his power to change
or alter it. For whence can a difparity of obligation arife, where
all men are fuppofed to be equal, and fui juris, or their own
maftcrs ? Or, if we fuppofe them to be united into bodies po-
litic, or civil focieties, and that in confequence of this the au-
thority of princes and of the laws has been eftablilhed, yet ex-
cept there were fome fuperior right and authority, by which they
fliould be all bound to ftaiid to their compacts, and yield. obe-
dience to their princes, what natural obligation could arife which
fliould bind them fo ftrongly, that they could not recede from
thofc com pads or agreements when they fliould think it for
their advantage to do fo ? They that were naturally equal cannot
by any fubfequent agreement or compadl become fo far unequal,
as abfolutely to divert themfelves of a power or liberty to renounce
thofe compafls and agreements, and to refumc their natural rights,
if thei;e were no power or authority, fuperior both to the indi-
viduals of the fociety and to the whole, to bind the obfervatiori of
their conventions upon them, and to oblige them to keep tlicii"
faith once given, and puniili their violation of it. The oblig.uitm
2 tJKrvfuic
Chap. VII. is not properly a Law. t z t
therefore of law muft properly arlfe fiom the command and au-
thority of the Supreme Being, fince none but God hath a proper
authority over all mankind. Mr, Selden hath produced many
tcftimonics to fliew, that the wifeft Heathens were fenfible of this,
and that they derived the original of law, and its obliging force,
from Goi or the gods (/). Plato frequently intimates, that no
mortal has a proper power of making laws, and that to Him alone
it originally and properly belongs. Cicero, in his books of laws,
exprefTcth himfelf fully and ilrongly on this head : he reprefents
it not only as his own opinion, but that of the wlfeft men, that
law is not originally of human inilitution, nor enaded by the
decree and authority of the people, but is an eternal thing, and
proceedcth from the Sovereign Wifdom which governeth the uni-
verfe, commanding or forbidding with the highefi: reafon (w).
And in the famous palTage quoted by Ladantius from Cicero's third
book De Ilepublica, fpeaking of that univerfal law obligatory on
all mankind, which he reprefents as the fame in all nations, and
which cannot be difpenfed with or abrogated in the whole or in any
part of it, nor can we be abfolved from it by the authority of fenate
or people, he adds. That " God, the common mafter and lord of
(/) SelJ. Je Jure Nat. et Gent. lib. i. cap. 8. p. 94. et feq. edit. Lipf. This
is aMb largely flitwn by the learned and ingenious author of " The Knowledge of
" Divine Things by Revelation only, not by Reafon or Nature."
(m) " Hanc igitur video fapientifllmorum fuiflc fcntentiam, legem neque ho-
" roinucn ingeniis excogitatam, ncc fcitum aliquod c/Te populorum, fed xternum
" quidJam, quod univerfum mundum rcgerct imperandi prohibendlque fapientia :
" iu principum illam legem ct ultimam mcntem efTe dicebant omnia ratione aut
" cogeniis aut vetantis Dei. Quamobrem lex vera atqiie princcps ad jiibcndum, et
" vetandum ratio eft refla fumini Jovis." Dc Leg. lib. ii. cvp. 4.
Vol. II. R
1 2 2 *r/ji Autienti held that natural Laio Part II,
f' all, is the inventor, the propounder, and the cna'il:or of this
" law (/;)." And before him, Socrates, fpeaking of certain un-
written laws, as he calls them, which are obfervcd in every place
or region after the fame manner, fays, tliat thefc laws were not
made by men, fince they could not all meet together for that pur-
pofe, nor are all of one language, but tliat the gods appointed thofc
laws to men (o).
Other tcftimonies might be added to fliew, that the beft: and
greatcft philofophers held God to be the only univerfal legiflator,
to whom it belongeth to give laws obligatory upon all mankind.
But then the queftion naturally arofe, how thefe divine laws come
to be known to men.
Cicero, in the remarkable pafluge before referred to, quoted by
Ladtantius, reprefents the univerfal law he fpeaks of, and of which
he fuppofes God to be the Supreme Author, as naturally known
to all men : that we are not to feek any other interpreter of it
but itfelf ; and he intimates that every man carries the interpre-
tation of it in his ov/n brcafl {p). This fcheme has been already
•(«) " Nam^tie crit communis quafi magi/ler et imperator omolum Dcus : ilk:
*' legis hujus inventor, difccptator, lator."'
(c) 'Eyu iJ^v S«»j oltMu Tii yonas tstsj to?,- aiJf^Isroi} $£?;«(. Xcn. Mcmoiab. lib. Iv.
cap. 4. fcft. 19, 20.
(/) " Eft quidem vera lex rc£la ratio, naturz congruens, difTiifa in omncs,
" conftans, fempltcraa, qua; vocat ad officium jiibcndo, vctando a fraude dc-
" tcrrcat ; neqiie ut qunrrtndus explanator, aut iwcrpres ejus alius." Cic. dc
Republ. lib. iii. Fragment, apiij Laftant.
confidered,
Ch.ip. VII. derives its Authority and obliging Force from God. i 23
conlidered, and I ihall not liere repeat what I have offered to
fliew, that the hvpothefis concerning the univerfal ckarnefs of the
•whole law of nature, as if it were fo obvious to all men that they
need no dired;ion or inftrudion, is contrary to the moft evident
fadl and experience. To what has been before obfervcd on this
head, I fliall now add a remarkable teftimony from Cicero him*
felf. " If (fays he) we had been naturally fo formed from our
" birth, that we could clearly behold nature herfelf, and under
" her excellent guidance accomplifli the courfe of life, there
*' would have been no need of learning and inftrudlfon." But he
goes on to fliew, that " this is not the cafe j that nature, iiv-
" deed, hath given us fome fmall fparks, but which, being de-
" praved by corrupt cuftoms and wrong opinions, we foon ex-
" tinguiH), fo that the light of nature no-where appears (^)."
And he afterwards reprefents vice as having the confent of the
multitude on its fide ; and that popular fame is for the moft part
inconfiderate and rafli, and an applauder of fins and vices (r).
And from thence he argues the great ufefulnefs and excellency of
philofophy, for inftrudling and directing mankind, and healii>g
the diftempers of the mind.
(7) " Qll'5'' fi tsles nos nnfura genuIfTct, ut earn ipfam intueri et pcrfplcfie,
cademque optutna diicc curfiim v'ltx conficcre poircmus, hand hT<h urat quttJ
quifquam rationein et doiftrinam rcquiiercr. Nunc parvulos nobis dedit igni-
culos, quos celeiiter inalis moribus opinionibufqiie dtpravati, lie refHtiguiinu.-;,
ut Qufquam naturae lumen appareat." Tufcul. Dll^put. lib. iii. cap. z,
(r) " Qnafi mnximus quidam magifter pcpnlus, atqne omnis tindiqne act vitJa
confentieiis multitudo; temcraria atque incunfideraca, et plcnimque peccatomui
vitionuu'ju: laud.uiix fanii populaiii." Itld.
R 2 It
^z/^. "The different Ways in -which the Philofophcnfuppofed Part II.
. It is an obfcrvation of the learned and ingenious Dr. Middleton,
tliat Cicero " took the fyftem of the world, or the vifible works
" of GoJ, to be the promulgation of God's law, or the declara-
" tion of God's will to mankind : whence, as we might collecl
" his being, nature, and attributes, fo we could trace the reafons
*' alio and motives of his adling, till, by obferving what he had
" done, we might learn what we ought to do, and by the opcra-
" tions of the Divine Reafon be inftrufted how to perfeifl our
" own; fince the perfe<flion of man confifteth in the imitation of
" God [s)." " I believe (fays Cicero, in the perfon of Cato)
" that the immortal gods have difperfed fouls into human bodies,
" that there might be beings who fliould behold the earth, and
*' contemplate the order of the heavens, and be thereby engaged
" to imitate that order in the regularity and conftancy of their
" lives (/)." To the fame purpofe he elfcwhere obferves, that
" man was originally made for contemplating the world, and imi-
*' tating it {u)." And that " the contemplation and knowledge
" of the heavens, and the orderly diipofition of things, teaches
" men modcfty, greatnefs of mind, and juilice (.v)." But what-
ever influence this might have upon fome philofophical and con-
templative minds, how few are there that can read their iliity in
(j) Life of Cicero, Vol. II, k£i. i:. p. 619. Dublin edit.
{t) " Credo deos immortales fparfitfe animos in corpora hiimana, ut efTent qui
" terras tuerentur, quique cosleflium ordiuem contcmplantes imitarcntur cum \\ix
" modo et conftaiiiia." Cato Major, five De Seneftutc, cap. 21.
(tt) " Ipfe homo oftus eft ad mundiim contemplr.ndum et imitandum." De
Nat. Deor. lib. ii. cap. 14.
(x) De Finib. lib. iv. cap. j.
tllC
Chap.VII. that Men ccme to the Knowledge of Moral Duty. \ i j
the lieavens, or coiled it from the order and harmony of the
celeftial bodies ? To refer the bulk of mankind to this for di-
redlion in morals, would be of fmall advantage, and would give
to them, or even to philofophers themfelves, little light or in-
flrudion with refped: to the particulars of their duty.
Accordingly, many of the Heathens were fenfible, that they
Tieeded a more particular and explicit declaration of tlie Divine
Will and Law. The mofl: eminent legillators, as was before ob-
ferved, pretended to have received the laws they delivered to the
people by communication from the gods, in order to give them
the greater weight and authority : or, which amounted to the fame
thing, had them approved by oracles, which were looked upon as
making authentic declarations of the Divine Will. To tliofc
oracles the people had frequent recourfe for diredtion, and in this
they were encouraged by the philofophers themfelves. Socrates,
as Xenophon informs us, was wont to confult the oracle, to know
the will of the gods, and efpecially the Delphian oracle (^'). Plata
afcribes " the firft, the greateft, and moll: excellent laws and in-
ultutions," Ta Tg iJ.iyi<^(x. >i xaAAiifa ^ -sy^wxa Twi' I'Cuo^tTijy.uTin'f
to Apollo at Delphi. And he has a particular reference to the
eftablifliing of temples and facrifices, and the fevcral kinds of
worfliip rendered to the gods, daemons, and heroes, and whatever
was neceflary for rendering them propitious. " Of thefc things
" (fays he) we ourfclves know notiiing. And in ordering the
" city, we flull, if we be wife, believe no other, nor ufe any
. )
{}) Sec coaceraing this vol. I, chap. xt.
" other
lz6 The liferent Wap tn which the Pbilofophers fuppofcd Part II.
" other guide than the patron god:" by which he means Apollo,
pf whom he had fpoken iufl: before (z)." To this it may be
added, that the philolbphers univerfally reprcfented it as the wili
of the gods, and which was prefcribed by the oracles, that all men
fliould conform to the laws of their country, both in religious and
civil matters ; and what falfe guides thefe were in many cafes, and
how unfit to furnilh a proper rule of duty, has been fufficiently
fiiewn.
Another way which the philofophers propofed for leading men
into the knowledge of the Divine Law and of Moral Duty, was
by the diftates and inftrudions of wife men, that is, of the phi-
lofophers them/elves. Tlius Cicero, in hrs treatife cA laws, aftcT
having faid that the fupreme original law is the reafon and author
rity of the fupreme eternal mind, obferves, that from thence is
derived the law which the gods have given to mankind, which
-law he explains to be " the mind and reafon of a wife man, fitly
*' difpofed for commanding that which is good, and deterring
" from evil. — Ex qua [i. e. ratione Dei] ilia lex quam dii hu-
" mano generi dederunt, redte efl laudata: eft enim ratio menf-
" que fapicntis ad jubenduni et deterrendum idonea {»)" And
again, he f\ys. That " as the divine mind is the fupreme law, io
" v/hcn it is in man, it is pcrfcdt in the mind of a wife man. —
_" Ut ilia divina mens fiimma lex eft, ita cum in homine eft,
(2) Plato de Rcpnbl. Kb. v. Oper. p. 448. edit. I.ugJ'.
{a) Cic. dc leg. lib. ii, cap. 4. p. 86. edit. Davis.
7 *' iH:ifc<fla
Cbap.VII. that Men come to the Kmvcledge of Moral Duty. izj
" perfcdia cfl; in niente fapientis (<i)." And he there argues, that
right reafon is the fame in God and man ; and that there is a
community of right and law between them, as belonging to one
city. " For (faith he) this whole world is to be regarded as one
" common city of gods and men." In this he followed the Stoics,
whofe fcheme was this j That the original of law and right is
reafon : that the reafon of God is the highell law : and the reafon
of God and of the wife man is the fame. So that in the iflue
law is refolved, with refped to our knowledge of it, into the
reafon of a wife man. Hence the high encomiums beftowed by
Cicero and others upon philofophy, as the befl and greatefl gift
of the gods, the inventrefs of laws, the guide of life, and the
knowledge of things divine and human.
But tliough tlie philofophers faid fuch glorious things of the
univerfal law, the law of God and reafon, and fupj^ofed it to be
perfedl in the mind of the wife man, yet when they came more
particularly to explain what the law of right reafon requires, they
differed mightily about it. They talked in an excellent manner
of virtue in general, but it is not true what fome modern writers
have affirmed, that they all agreed what is virtue, and what is
vice (c). There is a remarkable paffige in Plato's Pha:drus, which
it may not be amifs to mention here. Socrates afks Pha^drus,
" When any one names filver or iron, do not all underfland the
" fimc thing by it ?" Pha^drus acknowledges that it was fo.
(A) Cic. de Leg. lib. il. cap. 4. p. 83. edit. Davis. ^ '
(c) Bolingbrokc's Works, Vol. V. p. 204, 205. edit. 4to. ■ '
" But
1^8 Socrates' s ^ccamt of umcritten Laivs Part II.
♦' Bat (fays Socrates) when a man (peaks of that which is juft
*' or c;ood, is not one man carried one way, and another another,
" and we differ from one another, and even from ourfelves r" —
'AAA®- a/'.Ax f j^txaij x. a.y.(pic-Sv T'dySy) ct?Av?'.otiy k, rjy.i'i' d'JToTi (</).
Maximus Tyrius feems to have had this paflage in view, when
he faith, That " the fame thing is not good or evil to all, nor is
" the fame thing bafe or honourable to all men." And fpeaking
of law, and right, or juftice, he declares, that " neither nation
" agreeth witli nation in thefe things, nor city with city, nor fa-
" mily with family, nor one man with another, nor the fame
" man with himfelf (e)." And with regard to the philofophers
themfelves, fome of the moft celebrated of them, as will be
flicwn afterwards, approved things as permitted by the law of na-
ture, which others condemned as contrary to it.
Socrates, in a paflage before referred to, fpeaks of unwritten
laws, which he fuppofes to be of divine original, and to be ob-
ferved by all men in every region after the fame manner {J').
But this can only be underftood of a few general maxims and
principles : and even with refpeft to thefe, when they came to
be explained, there was flir from being an univerfal agreement.
The £rft article of that unwritten law mentioned by Socrates,
and which he feems to make the chief and the moft univerfaiiy
- (d) Plato Opera, p. 351. F. edit. Lagd.
{e) DilTert. 1. p. 5. Oxon.
(/) XcQ. Memor. Socr. lib. Iv. cap. 4. fc«f>. 19.
acknowledged,
Chap. MI. common to all Miifiliiiid. 129
acknowledged, is, <' that the gods fliould be worflilppcd."' —
UaPoe TraitTiv av^ocoTTon ^r^ii.Tov vyiAl^iTsLi Tvi'Sfivi (riCen: He doth'
not reprefent the law thus, tliat we are to worfhip God, but that
we are to worfliip the gods: as if polythcitm, or the worfliip of
many gods, was tlie firft law of nature {g)^ It has been oftere
faid, and many palTages of the antients are produced to that pur^-
pofe, that there has been a general confent or .agreement among^
all nations, the moft: barbarous not excepted, in the acknowledge-
ment of a Deity. And it is true that tliey have generally agreed
ift die notion of afaperior, inviJible Divine Power or Powers j but
not fo generally as fome have reprefented it, in the belief of one
Supreme God : though many of them had fome notion of this,
and there was an antient tradition concerning it, which had fpread
far and wide, and never was entirely extinguifhed. But when we
proceed to examine more particularly into the ideas they had of
the Divinity, or of fuperior invifible powers, and the worrtiip
that was to be rendered to them, here we fliall find a great dif-'
ference. Plutarch obferves, That " poets, philofophers, and
(g) Lord Herbert de Relig. Geptil. makes the firft articles of his catholic uni-
veral religion, acknowledged b_v all mankind, to be tl-.cfe, That there is one Supreme
Cod, and that ke is chiefly to be worrtiipped. Lord BoUngbroke carries it farther,
and fays, Th:'.t " the religion and law of nature Ihews us the Supreme Being, ma-
" nifeftcd in all his works to be the true and only objeft of adoration." And if
this be the law of natufe, that God only is to be %vorfhipped, it is evident, that
tlie grcatcA among the Pagan pliilofophcrs were fo far froin agreeing univerfally iij
this, thdt they ailrverrnlly ncj^lefled and counteraftcd it, by worfliipplng a multi-
plicity of deities, and encouraging others to do fo. And this, as was before ob-
fcrved, is a plain confutation bf what his Lord/liip has confidendy affirmedj That
" there is not one moral precept in the whole Gofpcl, which was not taught by
" the philofophers." See Bolingbroke's Works, Vol. V. p. 97, 98. compared with
P- 205. ■ _ ' , ,
Vol. II. S " lawgivers,
130 Socrates' i Account of the timvritten L^ics Part II.
" lavvgivei-s, were all along the firft that inftrudled and con-
" firmed us in our opinion of the gods. For all agree that there
" are gods : but concerning their number, their order, their ef-
" fence, and power, they vaftly differ from one another. The
" philofophers differ from the poets and lawgivers, and thefe
" from them." See his Amator. Oper. torn. II. p. y6^. C. D.
edit. Xyl. Francof. 1620.
Another inflance produced by Socrates of an univerfal unwritten
law obferved in every region after the fame manner, is that of ho-
nouring our parents. And in this mankind have generally agreed :
and yet they have differed in their obfervation of this law. In fe-
veral nations in antient times, they were wont to expofe or deftroy
their fick. and aged parents, pretending that this was better for them
than to Vv'ait for their natural deaths. The fame cufiom is flill
obferved among fome nations, particularly thofe that inhabit the
countries near the Cape of Good Hope. Socrates alfo fuppofes it
to be a part of the natural univerfal law, that parents fliould not
have carnal commerce with their children, nor children with their
parents. And yet it is well known, that there were fome nations,
particularly the Perfians (/j), wiio in other refpcdb had many good
(/;) Sr. Jerom atulbutcs the cuflom of ioccrtuous raaniagcs to the Made?, Inr
dians, ^¥.;hiopians, lib. ii. adveif. Jovinian. Opcr. torn. II. p. 7^. cJit. Bafi). See
Grot, de Jure Belli et Pacis, lib. ii. cap. 5. feifl. 12. who obfcrves, that Euri-
pides, in Lis Andromache, fpcaks of it as a cuftoni genera! among the barbarians.
Sec alfo Selden dc Jure Nat. ct Cent. lib. v. cap. 1 1. And it appc-nrs from Ltvit,
chap, xviii. that thefe praflices were common among the Cananites and other neigh-
houiing nations; which fliews the great piopricty of prohibiting thefe things by.
an cNprefs divine law, cnfoiccd by the authority of God himfclf, and by poAcrful
f3LU(ftions.
law?,
Chap. VII. tommon to all Mankind. 131
laws, among whom this was done without fcruple. And the Pcr-
lian magi, who were efteemed very wife men and great philo-
fophers, allowed and approved thefe and other incefluous mix-
tures (/). So did fomc of the principal Stoics, as Scxtus Empi-
ricus and Plutarch inform us {k).
That parents fliould love and nourifli, and take care of their
children, may be alfo juftly regarded as a law of nature ; and yet
the practice of expofing and deftroying their children was com-
mon, as I have fliewn, even among the moft civihzed nations,
approved and even required by fome of the moll famous legiflators,
and wifefl: philofophers.
Other inftances might be mentioned in relation to things, which,
one fliould be apt to think, are plain from the law of nature, con-
cerning which yet fome of the moft eminent philofophers have
palled very wrong judgments. This fliews, that even men of the
greateft abilities, if left merely to their own unaflifted reafon, are
apt to miftake in matters of great confequence in morality, and
that their didates and inftruftions could not furnirti a complete rule
of duty that might be fafely depended upon. This will farther
appear from the inftances which fliall be brought in the following
chapter, of great errors which they have a^ually fallen into with
regard to morals.
(i) Laert. Proccm. fcgm. 7.
{k) Pyrrhon. Hypotyp. lib. iii. cap. 24. Plutarch. Stoic. Repugn. Oper.
torn. II. p. 1044, 1045.
S 2 CHAP.
132 The Pbikfophers often mijlaken in tJxir Jpplicathns Part 11.
C H A P. VIII.
E.pi5letuii obfervation concerning the difficulty of applying genet'cd
preconceptions to particular cafes, verified in the antient philo-
fophers. They were generally wrong with refpeSl to the duty and
worjloip proper to be rendered to God., though they themfehes ac-
hio'insledged it to be a point of the highfjl importance. As to fo-
cial duties, fame erninent phihfophers pleaded for revenge and
ogainfl forgive nefs of injuries. But efpe-cially thy iccre deficient
in that part of moral duty which relates to the go^jcrnment of the
fenfual appetites and pafjions. Many of the phihfophers counter
nanced by their principles and praSlice the moft unnatural lujls
and vices. Thofe of them that did not carry it fo far, yet en-
couraged an impurity inconfifient with the JlriSlnefs and dignity
cf virtue. Plato very culpable in this refpeSl, fo alfo were the
Cynics and Stoics. Simple fornication generally allowed among/i
them. Our modern deifs very loofe in their principles with re-
gard to fenfual impurities.
IT is an obfervation of that excellent philofopher Epi<flctus,
That " the caufe of all human evils is the not being able to
*' adapt general preconceptions to particular cafes (/)." This he
frequently repeats. By preconceptions, /CYoAii^fts, lie undcrftnnds
general common notions, which the Stoics fuppofcd to be origi-
nally and naturally implanted in the human mind. Pic inHnnLcs
(/) Epiftet. Difilrt. book iv. chap. i. k^. 8.
ii\
Chap. VIII. of general Rules to particular Cafes. 133
in thefe, that good is eligible, and to be purfued; that jurtice is
fair and becoming. In thefe and the like general principles and
maxims men of all ages and nations agree. But in applying thefe
general notions there is great difference : and the beft education
confifts in learning to do this properly. See the 2 ad chapter of
the firft book of his DifTertations. This is alfo the fubjeil of the
nth and 17th chapters of his fecond book, where having ob-
ferved that we have natural ideas and preconceptions of good and
juft, he reprefents it as the proper bufinefs of philofophy, to in-
ftru(ft men how to apply fuch preconceptions in a right manner :
and that it is not poffible to do this as we ought, without having
minutely diftinguiilied them, and examined what is the proper
fubjc(ft to each. But it is no hard matter to fliew, that the philo-
fophers themfelves frequently erred in their application of general
notions and maxims (/«), and were wrong themfelves, and led
others wrong in matters of great confequence, with regard to the
(w) Though Lord Bolingbroke fiequently afTsrts the univerfal clearnefs of the
Jaw ot nature, and, in a pafliigc mentioned above, intimates that all men have an
intuitive knowledge ot it, from the firft principles to the Lift couclufions, yet he
elfewhere makes this acknowledgment, that " when we make particular appli-
" cations of the general laws of nature, we are very liable to miftake." He adds,
" That there are things fit and unfit, right and wrong, juft and unjuft, in the
" human fyflcm, and difccrnible by human reafon, as far as our natural imper-
" feftions admit, I aclcnowledge moft readily. But from the difficulty we have
" to judge, and from the uncertainty of our judgments m a multitude of cafes
" which lie within our bounds, I would dcmonftrate the fully of thufe who affeifl
" to have knowledge beyond them. They arc unable, on many occafions, to de-
" dut^ from the coiiflitntioa of ihtir own fyftem, and the laws of their own na-
" ture, with prccifion and cert;.;aty, what thefe require of them, and what is light
*' or wrong, juft or unjuft, for them to do." Bolingbroke's Works, Vol. V. p. 444.
edit. 4to.
particulars
1 34 ^''-'^ Pbilofopher'i generally ivroag Part 11.
particulars of moral duty : which fliews the great need they ftood
in of a fuperior authority and dire<5lion.
Many of the philofophers were fcnfiblc in general of the great
importance of the duties we owe to the Deity : that, as Hierocles
fpeaks, piety is the mother of all virtues. Cicero in his Offices,
in reprefenting the order of duties, places thofe relating to the
gods in the firft place, before thofe we owe to our country, and
to our parents (w). Yet it is obfervable, that in that book, which
is one of the moft excellent moral treatifes that was written by any
of the philofophers, he very llightly paffes over the duties relating
to the Divinity. He fometimes, though feldom, makes mention
of the gods, biit takes no notice of the one Supreme God. No
where does he in that treatife draw any arguments or motives to
enforce the pradicc of duty from the authority and command of
God, but merely from the beauty and excellency of the Honeftum-,
and the evil and turpitude of vice. It is a jufl: obfervation of Mr.
Locke, that " the philofophers who fpoke from rcafon, make not
" much mention of the Deity in their ethics (o)." The Stoics,
indeed, gave precepts of piety, which would have been excellent,
if they had been direded not to the gods, but to the one true God.
But of thefe I fhall treat dirtintflly afterwards. The philofophers
generally acknowledged, that God, or the gods, as they ufually
exprcfled it, were to be worHiippcd. But what kind of worfhip
(/;) De OfTic. lib. i. cap. ult. And to the fame purpofe, ibid. lib. ii. c.ip. 3.
(0) Locke's ReafoaablcDcfs of Chriilianity, ia his Works, Vol. II. p. 534.
edit. 3d.
this
Chap. V 1 1 1, li'ith reffeB to the Duties wc oive to Go J. 135
tlis fhould be, they were greatly at a lofs to know. Some of
them, under pretence of the moft exalted thoughts of the Divi-
nity, were only for worfhipping inwardly in the mind, and were
nat tor rendering any outward worfliip fo the Supreme Being, or
Him whom they call the Higheft God of all. Others, in ac-
commodation to the imaginations of the people, were for wor-
fliipping the Divinity by images and grofs corporeal reprefenta-
tions. Many were for rendering religious worfliip to the things
of nature and parts of the univerfe, under pretence of worfliipping"
God in them, as being either parts and members of the Divinity,
or animated by his powers and virtues. They all in general en-
couraged the worfliip of a multiplicity of deities ; and with relpedl
to the particular rites of worfliip, they referred the people to the
decifion of oracles, and to the laws of their refpcdive countries;
though fome of thofe rites were no way fit to make a part of that
worfliip, which reafonable creatures fliould offer to a pure and.
perfedl mind (/>).
An
(/) Plato, in his Euthyphro, fays, that hollnefs and piety is that partof juftice
•which is converfant about the fervice and worfhip of the gods : the other part of
juAice is that which relates to men *. As to tlie former, he does not in that dia-
logue give any dlreflions what kind of worfliip and fervice is to be rendered to the
gods. But in other parts of his works, he is for the people's worfliipping the gods
appointed by the laws of the ftate, and in the manner there prefcribed. It is tri:e,
that the Platonilb fpeak in high rtrains of what they call their divine virtue, as di-
ftinguifhcd from that which is ethical and political : they alfo talk frequently ot
aflTimilation to God. Plato, in his Thcactetus, feeras to have placed this in holi-
nefs and juflice, together with prudence f. I'nt the mod eminent of iiis follovveis,
thofe efpecially that lived after Chrirtianity had made fome progrefs in the world,
(iXtn not to underftand this of a piety or virtue which the people were fuppofed'
•• Plato Opera, p. jz. F, fdit. Ui(;<l. 1590, f Hid. p. 118. C,
capable-
I ^6 Tbe Ph'ilofcpbcri gemrvVy ivrong. . ^ Part II.
.HAn oath has been always -accounted a facred thing, and regarded
as a folemn appeal to the Divinity. In the law of Mofes it is re-
quired as a part of the religious homage due to the SupremeBeing,
to fwear by his name, when it is neceffary to do fo j and the
fwearing by other gods is forbidden (9). No precept of this kind
is to be found in the writings of the Pagan philofophers and mo-
ralifts : nor do they any-where forbid fweaiing by the creatures,
\Yhich is condemned by our Saviour (/). Dr. Potter, in his'
excellent Greek Antiquities, obferves concerning Socrates, that
he told his difciples, that RhadamanthuSj the jufteft man that ever
lived, had difapprovcd men's fvi^earing by the gods, but inftead'
cqp^bk of attaiuing to : nor will they allow this to have been Plato's fenfe. They fo'
explain tlieir divine virtue, as to make it of little ufe to the people. It belonged pro-
perly to the philofophers, and was chiefly of a theoretical nature, confining in ab-
flraftecUoateinplations of the Platonic intelligible gods, the eternal ideas and arche-
tj'pal forms of things, and the t' ayaSih, which is to be difcerned by a " boniform,
"' ITglTt," as Plotinus calls it, and which he reprefents as Above intelleifl *. They
placed the l^eight of their divine virtue or deiform life in a perfeft apathy -^, and dOf
abfolute abftraftednefs from all material objefts, as if all boJy and matter were in
itfelf a pollution, and of a contaminating nature. They contrived alfo methods of
purging and purifyiag the foul, and raifing it to communion with the gods, by what
they called theurgy. And it is to be obferved, that amidft all their fublimities, and
though fome of them rofe to extravagant flights of m) flicifm and enthufiafm, they
made no attempts to reclaim the people from the common idolatry, but endea-
voured fo to model tlicir philofophy and theology, as to countenance and uphold
the Pagan fyftem of fuperflition and polytheifm. But it is the great advantage of
the Gofpel Revelation, that the piety and conformity to God which It requires; is
fuch as the generality of good men arc capable of, whom it teaches to form the mofl
juft and worthy notions of the Deitj', and to worlhip him in fpirit and in ti uth.
(2) Deut. vi. 13. Jjfli. x.\iii. 7.
'(r) Matt. V. 35, 36, 37. James v. 12.
• Plotin. Enn. VJ, li'.-. viii. cap. 15. f Enn. I. lib. i. cti-. 7. 1;.
a of
Cliap. VI 1 1 . liitb refpedl to the Duties vjc o^ve to Go J. 1 3 7
of this, allowed them to fwear by a dog, a goofe, a ram, or fuch
like creatures. And accordingly that philofopher was wont to
fwear, either by animals, as by a goofe, by a goat, by a dog, or,
as he fometimes expreffcs it, by the dog which the Egyptians
worfliipped: fometimes he fwears by a plant, as an oak, or a
plane-tree (j). Though, if Plato reprefents him right, he alfo
fwears by the gods, by Juno, and frequently by Jupiter ; of which
there are fevual inftances in one of his mofl remarkable dialogues,
which is intituled, Euthyphron. It was'a faying of Plato, "Ook.©^-
•c^l xa'jT®- ccTreq-o). " Juramentum pi-se omnibus abfit," asGro-
tius renders it (t) ; where he feems to advife the abflaining from
all oaths. And yet, certain it is, that oaths every-where abound
in Plato's works. Zeno, the father of the Stoics, was wont to
fwear >7i r xaTTTra^n', by a fhrub that bears capers. It is an advice
of Epidletus, " Avoid fwearing as much as poflible ; if not, as far
*' as you are able." This probably is to be undcrilood of fwear-
ing before a magiftrate, which feme of the philofophers, and par-
ticularly the Pythagoreans, difapproved. Yet he himfelf fwears
in his difcourfes, particularly by heaven, and by Jupiter, and by
all the gods (w). Marcus Antoninus alfo fwears by Jupiter, and
by the gods (a:). The empsror Julian frequently fwears by the
■gods. Pythagoras rarely fwore by the gods, or allowed his dif-
(;) Potteri Archaeolog. Graec. Vol. I. book ii, chap. 6. p. 215. fiift edit.
{t) Grotius in Matt. v. 34,
(f<) Epift. DifTert. book ii. chap. 19, fei!>. 8. €t ibid. chap. 20. fcfl. 6. anJ
\a other pafTagcs.
(x) Antonin. book v. fuift. 5. et book vii. feft. 17. and dfcwhere.
Vol. II. T clples
t3^ The PhilGfophen generally loroti^ Pavt. IL
ciples to do fo. But they ufed to fwear vt. 'r rerpoixTjy, by .the
tctradtysj or tl^ number four. But whatever was tlie meaning
of t!i€ tetradys, in the explication of vi-hich the Pythagoreans
themfclves were not agreed, the fwcaring by the tetradiys was fo
underftood by them, as to include the fwearing by him that taught
them the tetradys, i. c. by Pythagoras himfelf ( v). Hierocles,
in his commentary on the golden vcrfes of Pythagoras, in explain-
ing that precept, o-ijSa opxof, " reverence an oath," gives good
directions about oaths, that we ought not only to keep our oaths
when we make them, but to abftain from i'wearing, and not ac-
cuftom ourfelves to it (z). Yet afterwards, commenting upon that
part of diofe verfcs which relates to the fwearing by the author of
their inftitution, who taught them the tetradtys, Hierocles thinks
it reafonable, that Co much honour fliould be done to the mafter
V/ho taught them the truth, as to fwear by him, whenever it was
needful, for the confirmation of his doftrine; and not only to pro-
nounce, that he taught them thofe dodlrines, but to fwear that
they were true. For that though he was not of the number of
the immortal: gods or heroes, he was adorned with the fimilitude
of the gods, and retained among his difciplcs the image of the
Divine Autiiority i and that therefore they fwore by him in great
qia;tcrf,,to fhevy how much he was honoured by theno, ai.d what
dignity he had acquired by the dodlrines he delivered {a).
(;') ii.-iiky s Hill, of Philof. p. 516. edit. 2d, Ij?nd.
, iz\ xjicroclci ia Aur.^ Carm. p^ 31 et 32. edit. NcxdLiin. Cautab.
l.i) Ibid. p. 169, 170.
Chap. VIII. "jjitb rtfpcdl (o the Duties ive ou-e to Go J. 1 5 p
As to the civil and ibcial duties, which men owe to one another,
the abfolute necefuty of this part of morals to the welfare, and in
fome refpeds to the being of fociety, helped, no doubt, to preferve
the feme of them in fome confiderable degree among mankind.
The philofophers faid excellent things, and gave many good in-
ftrudtions and dirediions concerning them. And the meafures of"
juft and unjuft, of right and wrong, were for the moft part fettled
by the civil laws, as far as was necelTary for the prefervatioa of
public order.
The philofophers frequently fpeak of that benevolence which
fliould unite men to one another, and reprefent all mankind as
formed and defigned by nature for mutual afliftance, and an inter-
courfe of kind ofiices. Yet in this, as well as other inftances, they
were not always confident with themfelves, and fell fliort of that
noble univerfal benevolence which the Gofpcl requires. In Plato's '
fifth Republic, Socrates is introduced as faying, That the Greeks
fliould look upon one another as brethren of the fame family and
kindred ; but upon the barbarians, which was a name they be-
flowed upon all nations but themfelves, as flrangcrs and aliens ;
that the Greeks were (^-jGOi o/Asi, by nature friends j and therefore
they fliould not go to war with one another, or if they did, they
fliould do it as if they were one day to be reconciled j but that the
barbarians were 7rs?.(w.ot ouo-a, enemies by nature, with whona
they were to be continually at war: that therefore it would be
wrong for the Grecians to dcllroy Grjecians, to reduce them to
T 2 llaverv,
140 The ThUofophen differed in their SeHtiments Part If..
flavery, or to wafle their fklds, or burn their houfes j but that they
fliould do all this to the barbarians {h).
The forgiving thofe that have injured us, is a noble part of that
benevolence which men ibould exercife towards one another.
Some of the moft eminent philofophers were fenfible of this.
Plato lays it down as a maxim, ia his Crito, that a man when
provoked by an injury ought by no means to retaliate it. And
Maximus Tyrius has a whole diflertation in defence of that ma-
xim. Grotius has colleiTted other teftimonies to the i\ime pur-
pofe (c). But above all, Epidletus and It'Iarcus Antoninus have
given excellent leflbns on this head. But there were other philo-
fophers of great name, who taught a different doftrine. Among
the moral maxims of Democritus, one is this, v/hich Stoba?us has
preferved. That " it is the work of prudence to prevent an injur}',
" and of indolence, when it is done, not to revenge it." Ariftotle
fpeaks of meekncfs as fecming to err by defcdtj " becaufe the
" meek man is not apt to avenge himfelf, but rather to forgive."
— Ou yi T/u«o«Ti/(c? 0 <x^a'^, aAAa ji/aAA::' o"t;^^'r&'uciixo5 (")•
Anger was ufually defcribed by the philofophers, l^thi aVnAuTrr'-
o-«ftj?, a dcfire of revenge, or returning the evil. Cicero tranflates
it, " ulcifcendi libido (?)." The fame great philofopher and mo-
ralift reprcfcnts it as the firfl: thing that juftice requires, " that no
(A) Plato Opera, p. 464. G. 465. A. edit. Lugd. 1590.
(c) Grot, in Mat. v. 39.
(^) Ethic, ad Nicomach. lib. iv. cap. 11. Oper. torn. II. p. 53. edit. Parif.
((•) Tufcul. Difput. lib. iii. cap. 5. et lib. iv. cap. 19.
" man
Chap. "VIII. cottcerni'ig the Forghenefs of Injuries. P411
" man lliould hurt another, unlefs he be provoked by an iniury. — •
" Juflitiai primum munus eft, ut ne cui qais noceat, nili lacellitus
" injuria (/)." And again, he gives it as the charader of a good
man, that " he does good to thofe vviiom it is in his power to
" ferve, and hurts no man uniefs he be provoked by an injury. —
" Eum virum bonum effe, qui profit quibus pofTit; noceat ne-
" mini nili laceffitus injuria (^)." And he declares to his friend
Atticus concerning himfelf, that " he would avenge each of the
** evil deeds that were done hinij according to the provocations
" he received, — Sic ulcifcar facinora fingula quemadmodum it
" quibufque fum provocatus." But it may be proper here to take
notice of a pafliige in his Offices, where he declares for fetting
bounds to revenge. " There are certain offices (fays lie) to be
" obferved towards thofe from whom we have received an injury j
" for there is a meafure to be kept in avenging and puniOiing :
" and for aught I know, it may be fufficient, if he that did the.
" injury repents of it, fo that both he himfelf may abftain from
*' doing the like for the future, and that others may be dif-
" couraged from attempting to injure us (/;)." He feems hereto
intimate, that if the man that did the injury repented of it, this
might perhaps be a fufficient fatisfadtion ; but he tacks two things
to it as the conditions of forgivenefs ; one is, that the man ffiould
(/) De Offic. lib. i. cnp. 7.
(g) Ibid. lib. ili. c.ip. 19.
{h) " Sunt quxdam ofRcia eti.im .idverfus eos fervanda, a quibus injuriam ac—
" ceperis. EA enim ulcifcondi ct punicndi modus. Atque h.iud icio an fatis fit,
" eum qui lacefTivcrit injarix fux poeniteie, ut et ipfc no quid tale poAhac commit-
•'■ tat, ct cstcri lint ad injiitiani tardiorcs." De 0/Hc. lib. i, cnp, 1 1.
never
I4i The Phihfophers differed i)i their Sentiments Part II,
ric\er do the like again ; the other is, that others might be deterred
from injuring us ; and this might open a large fcope for retaliation
of injuries. Here there feems to be no room left for forgiving or
pafling by repeated injuries. On this fuppofition, a man might
forgive one that had injured him once, but not if he lliould injure
him a fecond time. And how ditferent this is from the Gofpel
doflrine of forgivenefs, I need not take pains to fliew.
t'lt is obfervable, that when Plato introduces Socrates in his
Crito, faving excellent things concerning the forgivenefs of in-
juries, and againfl the returning injury for injury, he at the fame
time owns, that what he taught was contrary to the fentiments of the
o\ iTG^Xot, the generality of mankind. And what authority could
he pretend to, which (liould oblige men to regard his opinion as a
law, efpecially when it was contradicted by other philofophcrs ?
And fo it is alfo by feveral of thofe among the moderns, who have
been admired as great mafters of reafon. Mr. Bayle pretends,
that the precept prohibiting revenge, though delivered in the
Gofpel, is contrary to the law of nature. The fame tiling is
alTerted by many of our deifls, who profefs to be governed by the
law of nature and reafon. Dr. Tindal, particularly, makes the
doftrine of forgiving injuries an objeftion againfl the Gofpel mo-
rality. I have elfcwhere examined his objedllons, and vindicated
the dodlrinc of the Gofpel on this head, againfl: tlie cenfures and
mifreprefentations of that author (;'). At prefent I iTiall only
(i) Sec Anfwer to Chriftianity as eld ns the Creation, Vol. II. chap. 9. p. :32.
ct. fcq. 2d edit.
obfcrve,
Chap. VIII. concerning the Forghencfs cf Injuries. i ..{.3
obferve, that it hence appears how far men would be from agree-
ing in this point, if left merely to judge of it by their own reafon.
And yet it is of no fmall importance in morals. And to leave
men to themfelves, to adt in tliis matter as they fliould think fit,
would be to open a wide door to that malice and revenge, and
reciprocation of injuries, which hath produced fuch infinite mif-
chiefs in the world, and hath often difturbed, and continueth flill
to difturb, the peace and order of focieties. It was therefore a
worthy objedl of a Divine Revelation to reflrain private revenge by
a Divine Command. And fo flrong is the difpofition towards it,
that all the reftraints tliat can be laid upon it are no more than is
necelTary. And the dodb-ine of our Lord in refpedl to this, when
duly confidered, appears to be excellent, and becoming the great
Saviour and Lover of mankind.
But there was no part of morals, in which the philofophers-
were more generally deficient, than in that which relates to the
regulating the fenfual paflions, and maintaining a virtuous chaf-
tity and purity of manners. Some of them, indeed, talked, in very
high terms of the neceffity of governing the fleflily appetites, \\\
order to the preferving the due order and dignity of the rational
nature : but notwithftanding this, when they came to apply thefe
general rules to particular cafes, they were often (liamefuUy wrong'
and defedivc, and countenanced impurities which dlflionoured
human nature. It is an obfcrvation of Sir John Marfliam, and
which may be Ibpported by good authorities. That " all manner
" of inceft', adultery, and even mafculine mixtures, were reckoned
" by fome of the antients, who were famous for wildom, among
•' indifferent
14+ 'Tl-^ Philofophen greatly deficient in flat Part Part II.
•' indifferent tilings. — Inceflus omnigenus, adulterium, et etiam
" d^treiofJLi^ix, veterum nonnuUis, fapientiai nomine Claris, inter
'* uSioiifo^a. habebantur {k)."
That abominable and unnatural vice, which, I have fhewn,
was very common in Greece, and which, Xenophon tells us, was
in feme cities eftabliflied by the laws, was what many of the phi-
lolbphers countenanced, both by their maxims and by their prac-
tice. Plato himfelf is accufcd of it by feveral authors (/)j but
though his manner of expreliing himfelf in fome of his works can
fcarce be excufed, and he might poffibly have fallen into fome
excelies of this kind in his younger years, it is certain that he
has ftrongly declared againll it, in his eighth book of laws, as
being contrary to nature, and which ought by no means to be-
permitted. Plutarch, though he reprefcnts it as commonly prac-
tifed and pleaded for, fpeaks of it with deteftation, in the perfon
of one of his dialogifts, in his Amatorius. Yet there were others
of the philofophers, great pretenders to reafon and virtue, who
judged very differently concerning it. Sextus Empiricus tells us,
that the Cynics, and the chiefs of the Stoic feft, looked upon it
to be an indifferent thing (;«). How much the philofophers
were fufpcdted and blameci on this account, appears from Plu-
tarch's trcatife De liberis educandis, where it is intimated, that
many parents, who were concerned for the reputation of their
{k) Canon. Chronic, fccul. ix. p. 172.
(/) Sec Dr. D.ivis's note on Tufcul. Difpiit. lib. iv. cap. 34. p. 329.
(m) Pyrrhon. Hypotyp. lib. iii. cnp. 24.
fors,
Cliap.VIII. of Morahivhlch relates to Chajlity andVunty. 14 j
fons, would not fuffer them to keep, company with the philo-
fophers, who profefled love to them («). He feems, indeed, to
think, that thofe parents were too auftere and fcrupulous ; and
produces the examples of Socrates, Plato, Xenoplion, ^fchines,
Cebes, and others, who profefled love to young gentlemen, with
a view to train them up to virtue, and make them ufeful to their
country: yet he declares himfelf to be in doubt, and at a lofs
what to determine in this matter, and at laft concludes with faying,
that it is proper for parents not to fuffer thofe to come near their
fons, who make bodily beauty the objedl of their dcfirc, but to
admit and approve thofe who are lovers of the foul (0). So infamous
(;;) I niall here fubjoin part of a marginal note of the learned Dr. Ford, in his
EDglirti n-anflation of that treatife of Plutarch. After liaving declared his willing-
nefs to believe, that the philofophers whom Plutarch mentions, and who were tlie
Ikifleft obfervers of monility among the Heathens, " had good intentions in the
" love they made to boys ; j=et (he thinks) Plutarch was too fevere in his cenfure
" of the parents, who were in this point cautious of their fons reputation, conil-
" dering how infamous this converfation was, even among the Grecians ; and
*' how ill Alcibiades was reputed of for his love to Socrates, and even Socrates
*' himfelf for his fake. And the choice of the moA beautiful children by the phi-
" lofophers for their courtrtiip, and the rivalries they encountered, togctlier with
" the expreflions of dalliance which they ufed to them, nothing different front
" thofe which ordinarily are bellowed by woers on the other fex, gave too much
" occafion for the wits of thofe limes to cxpofe them, as juftiy fufpeifled of the
" fouleft of vices : who, under whatever pretence of love to their fouls, and dcfign
" to ingratiate their philofophical counfels the better to them thereby, thus kept
" them company : and that it was certainly, were they otherwife never fo innocent,
*' a great fcandal on their parts giwn to others that made an ill ufe of their
" examples." This is a judicious and moderate cenfure. Some very amorous and
paffionate exprcfllons of Socates himfelf are mentioned by Maximus Tyrius, in the
apology he makes for him, which cannot be cxcufed from great indecency.
(0) Cicero ridicules the Stoics pretence of loving a beautiful boy from a principle
of friendlhip; and aflis, " What is that love of fiiendfliip ? How comes it, that
" none of them is in love, either with an ugly young man, or a handfomc old
♦' one?" Tufcul. Difput. lib. iv. cap. 33, 34.
Vol.. II. U were
l^cJ The Philofopben greatly deficient in that Part Part IP.
were many of thole who called themfelves philofophers for this
vice, tliat " Socratici Cinzcdi" became a proverb. Lucian, in his
Ep4)Tg;, ill the perfon of one of his dialogiits, rallies the philo-
fophers for pretending to be in love with the fouls, when it was
really the bodily beauty they were fond of. And when he liim-
felf palles a judgment upon the difpute, hz fays, that " mar-
" riage belongs to all, but paederafty fliould be left to the philo-
?S fophers," — rJaiJe^aTaif a'fgij&w jj-ovii fiAocro<pon. Lucian. Operoj
torn. I. p. 890, 891. 5)01. edit. Amft. Origcn, after having ob-
ferved that we may find purity, gravity, and fimplicity of man-
ners among illiterate Chriflians, of which thofe are not partakers
who call themfelves wife men and philofophers, reprefcnts thefe
latter in ftrong terms, as indulging the moft unnatural iilthinefs,
and applies to them the words of St. Paul, Rom. i. 27 (/>).
But not to infift longer upon vices fiiocking to human nature,
which yet pafTed among many of the philofophers for matters of
indiffercncy, there were other inftanccs of impurity countenanced
by them, which, though not fo unnatural, yet are not confirtent
with the ftridlnefs and dignity of virtue.
None of the philofophers was more admired than the divine
Plato, as he was ufually called, and who, Cicero fays, was a kind
of God among the philofophers: and yet his doiftrine in the fifth
book of his Republic, where he propofes to give a perfcdt model
of a well-ordered commonwealth, is fuch as can fcarce be recon-
{J>) Origen cent. Cdf. lib. vli. p. 365.
ciled
Chap.VIII. of Morals ivhich relate to Cbiijliiy and Purify. \ 47
ciled to the rules of common modefty and decency. He would
have the women appear naked, as well as the men, at the public
cxercifes, and apologizes for it, under pretence that they will be
cloathed with virtue inftead of garments []). In the fame book.
he appoints the community of women in his commonwealth (r) :
that the wives of thofe whom he calls ^uAaxs?, the guardians of
the cit)' and commonwealth, (hould be common to them all, and
that the children fliould be fo too ; fo that the father fliould
not know his fon, nor the fon his father; but all fliould be the
children of the commonwealth. He farther propofes, that thofe
young men who had diftinguifhed themfelves in war, or were
eminent in other refpedls, (hould be rewarded, by allowing them a
larger liberty of accompanying with the women ; that more children
might be had from them for the commonwealth than from others {s).
And again, he would have the man that was remarkable for his
bravery, to be allowed, upon a military expedition, to kifs whom-,
foever he pleafed, and that it fhould not be permitted to any one
(q) Plato de Republ. lib. v. Open p. 4J9. edit. Lugd. 1590.
(r) There have been feveral nations, among whom a community of wives was
allowed. This is faid to have been the cuflom of the Troglodytes, Agathyrfi, the
Madagcti, and Scythians, of whom Strabo faith they had their wives in common,
agreeably to the laws of Plato. Geograph. lib. vii. p. 461. A. edit. Amft.
Pufiendorf has given a long lift of other nations, which have the fame cuftom
among them, fuch as the antient inhabitants of Britain, the Sabeans, thofe of the
kingdom of Calecut, the antient Lithuanians, &c. See Puffend. de Jure Nat. et
Gent. lib. vL cap. i. feft. 15. where he proves very well that this is contrary to
the law of nature. And it is a remarkable inftance to fliew, that men are apt to
pafs wrong judgments even in things which are really founded in nature and
reafon.
(x) Plato Republ. lib. v. Oper. p. 460. edit. Lugd.
U 2 to
1 48 7be Philofophers greatly deficient in that Part Part II.
to refufe him ; and tliat if he happened to be in love with any
perfon, whether male or female, it fliould make him more eager
by his courageous exploits, to obtain the rewards of his valour (/).
There is another paflage in the fame book, which I had occafioa
to hint at before, and which admits of no excufc, that when merv
and women have pafled the age which he afligns to them as fit for
the begetting and conceiving ftrong and heahliy children for the
commonwealth, which, according to him, is tlie age of forty for the
women, and fifty-five for the men, they ftiould be at liberty (both
men and women) to accompany with whom they pleafed, only
ex'cepting their parents and children, or thofe in a diredt line above
or below either of thefe. And if it fliould happen that any child
fliould be begotten, care fliould be taken, cither to prevent its
coming to the birth, or to expofe it afterwards without nourilh-
ment {»). I am forry that I am obliged to mention thefe and
other things of the like kind, which may fliock tlie delicacy of
the reader ; but the fubjedl I am upon makes it ncceflary to take
notice of them, as they furnifh ftriking inflances, that men of the
greateft abilities and genius, when left to thcmfelves, may fall into
the moft grofs miftakes in matters of great importance in morals.
For who might feem more to be depended on than Plato, whofe
writings have been admired in all ages by the beft judges, as con-
taining fome of the noblefl efforts of human genius, and who is
particularly celebrated for his moral fentiments, which, in many
refpetfls, were undoubtedly very iuft as well as fublime. This
(/) Plato Republ. lib. v. Opcr. p. 464. edit. Lugd.
(.•') Ibid. p. 461. B, C.
great
Chap. V 1 1 1, of Morals which relates to Chajlity and Pur it v. 1 4^
great man has obferved in this fifth book of his Republic, from
whence I have extiadlied the paflages here referred to, that " ex-
" cept philofophers were to have the rule over cities and king-
" doms, or kings and rulers were to be well inftrudted in philo-
" fophy, and both united in one, and not feparated as now, neither
" cities nor human kind would have any reft from evil {x)." But
I believe it will be allowed, tliat Plato has given a fpecimen in
this book, that if philofophers were to have the making of laws
and the government of cities and kingdoms committed to them,
they might make very wrong regulations with regard to the morals
of their fubjcdls.
The Cynics were a fe(fl of philofophers, who profefled to make
morals their entire ftudy, and to govern themfelves by the pure
fimple dictates of nature and right reafon, without any regard to
popular opinions and cuftoms, and accordingly they are highly
praifed by Epidletus and others. But though they gave excellent
precepts, and examples too, of equanimity, patience, contentment,
and a contempt of worldly riches and honours, the lifual objects of
ambition and avarice, they allowed themfelves great Jberties in the
gratification of their fenfual paffions. Diogenes was one of the
moft celebrated among them ; for vi'hom Epid:etus frequently pro-
fefTes the greatcft efteem, propofing him, as well as So.rates, as
a model and pattern of virtue, and efpecially of a great PiJnd, fu-
perior to the honours, riches, and pieafures of the world ( j ). He
(a.) Plato Repiibl. lib. v. Oper. p. 466. E. edit. Lugd.
{y) Epift. Di/Tcrt. book i. chap. 24. feci. i. and book li. chap. 16. feft. 3.
employs
1 JO The Phi'.ofophers greatly deficient in that Tart Part II.
employs a whole large ehapter in defcribing the true Cynic, of
whom he fpeaks with the hightfl: admiration ; and particularly he
there celebrates Diogenes, as fent by Jupiter to men to inftruft
them concerning good and evil {z). And he elfewherc calls him
the minirter of Jove, and the divine Diogenes {a). This fliews,
that fome of the befl: of the Heathens, for fuch undoubtedly Epic-
tetus was, laid no great ftrcfs on chaftity and purity, as a neceflary
ingredient in the charadler of a man of virtue. Diogenes never
married, for which he feems to be commended by Epidtetus ; but
he found other ways of gratifying his concupifcence, which he
did without any regard to modefty or (liamc. Some of his hafc
afts of filthinefs, committed in public, were approved by the
famous Stoic Chryfippus, as Plutarch informs us [b). And
Laertius fays, that Diogenes held, " that women ought to be
" common, looking upon marriage to be nothing, and that
" every man and woman might keep company with thofe they
" liked bell:, and that therefore the children ought to be in
" common (£•)."
The cullom of lending their wives, which was common at
Sparta, and authorized by the laws of Lycurgus, is not con-
demned, but fcems rather to be approved by that eminent philo-
(z) Epift. Differt. book iii. ch.ip. 22.
[a) Ibid. chap. 24. feifl. 3, 4. and Enchirid. chap. 15.
{b) Dc Stoic. Repugn. Oper. torn. II. p. 1044. B.
(f) Laert. lib. vi. fegm. 72.
fopher
Chap.VIlI. of Morals lohich relates to Chajlity and Purity, 1 5 r
fopher Plutarch, in his hfe of Lycurgus {d). And he gives a
remarkable inftance of it among the Romans, in his life of Cato
of Utica. That rigid Stoic, who was accounted a perfeft model
of virtue, lent his wife to the orator Hortenfius. This was agree-
able to the dodrine of the Stoics, who held, according to Laertius,
that women ought to be common among the wife ; for which he
cites Zeno and Chryfippus.
As to fornication, it was generally allowed among the Heathens.
And I do not find that any of the philofophers abfolutely con-
demned it, provided it was done in a legal way. Plato, in his
eighth book of laws, orders that no man iLould prefume to touch
noble or free women, except his own wife > but he does not for-
bid them to accompany with other women, provided they were
fuch as they had bought, or acquired in any other lawful way {e).
Solon made a fevere law againfl: adultery j but allowed proftitutes
to go openly to thofe that hired them (y"). And Demofthenes
fpeaks of it openly, and without fcruple, as what was daily prac-
(J) This is not diAipproved by fome of our modern fceptics. Mr. B.iyle, in
his Nouvelles Lettres contre Maimbourg, Icttre 17. maintains, that if we only
confult reafon as feparated from grace, and the light of divine faith, a man would
make no moie diilicuhy of lending his wife, than of lending a book; and that
were it not for the ridiculous fear of cuckoldom, reafon would nther advifc the
community than the propriety of w'.ves. This is well anfwered and expofcd by
Mr. liarbeyrac, in his notes on Puffcudorl 's Le Droit dc la Nature ct dcs Gens,
livre vi. chap. i. feft. 15.
(if) Pla-.o Opera, p. 646, 647.
(/") See Plutirch, in his Life of Solon.
tiled.
1 5 2 T^he Philofophen greatly deficient in that Part Part II.
tifcd, and univerHilly allowed among the Greeks {g). Tlie phi-
lofophcrs took as great liberties this way as any others, without
being at all afliamed of it, or thinking they had done a wrong
thing. Epidetus praifes Socrates and Diogenes, in oppofition to
thofe who corrupt and intice women. But if they did not corrupt
other men's wives, which, it is faid, Socrates never did, yet it is
well known, that Diogenes did not fcruple the making ufe of
common women. The fame thing is affirmed of Socrates by
Porphyry, in his third book of the Lives of the Philofophers,
who produces the teftimony of Ariftoxenus, a celebrated antient
autlior J which teftimony is alio referred to by Cyril Alexandri-
nus [b) and Theodoret (/). Socrates the ecclefiaftical hiftorian
has cenfured Porphyry on this account ; but Holftenius has vindi-
cated Porphyry againft that cenfure, in his book De Vita et
Scriptis Porphyrii, p. 41. 43. at the end of the Cambridge edi-
tion of Porphyr. de Abftinentia, 1655.
It is true, that fome of the Heathens were fenfiblc that there
was a turpitude in women's proflituting thcmfelvcs ; or, as Alpian
exprefleth it, " Meretrices turpiter facere quod meretrices eflcnt."—
" That harlots afted bafely in being harlots." And that there was
a probrum or infamy in fuch a condud. — " Probrum intelli-
" gitur etiam in his mulieribus efle, qua; turpiter viverent, vulgo-
" que quaeftum fiicerent, ctiamfi non palam." And in fomc
{g) Orat. cont. Nta'rain, .ip. Athen. Dcipnof. p. 573.
{h) Cyril. Akx. cont. Julian, lib. vi.
(«■) Theodoret. Therap. fcrm. i. as .alfo fura. a ct 12.
J nations
Chap. VIII. of Morals 'which relates to Chajlity andPurtt)'. \ ^^
nations they had public notes of difgrace put upon them, and
were not fuffered to enter into their temples. Tacitus, fpeaking
of Veflilia, a Roman lady of a noble family, who before the
aediles publiflied herfelf a proftitute, obferves, that the antient
Romans thought that thefe women were fufficiently puniHicd
by their very avowing their own infamy. " Satis pcenarum ad-
" verfiis impudicas in ipfa profefiione flagitii credebatur (^)." One
fliould have thought, therefore, that they mud have acknow-
ledged that the indulging meretricious loves is contrary to that
purity and decency which becomes the rational nature, as dif-
tinguidied from the brutal kind : and that if there is a turpitude
in women's proftituting themfelves, there mufl: be alfo in men's
makijig ufe of proftitutes, and thereby encouraging fuch proftitu-
tions. And yet it does not appear that this was regarded among
the men as a crime. It has been obfervcd, how univerfal this was
among the Greeks. And as to the Romans, the faying of Cato
to a young gentleman, whom he faw coming out of a brothel, is
well known, in which he encouraged young men to that pradice,
provided they took care not to abufe other men's wives (/). And
the famous paflage of Cicero, in his oration for M. C^lius, is ftill
more remarkable, in which he openly declares before a public
aflembly of the Roman people, " That to find fault with mere-
" tricious amours was an extraordinary feverity, abhorrent not
" only from the licentioufnefs of that age, but from the cuftoms
" and conftitutions of their anceftors." And he afks, " When
{k) Tacit. Annul, lib. ii. cap. 85.
(/) Horat. Sat. lib. i. fat. 2. vcr. 31. et feq.
Vol. II. X " was
I J4. The Philfjfophers greatly deficient in that Part Part II.
" was this not done ? When was it found fault with ? When
" was it not allowed ? Can the time be named when this prac-
" tice, which is now lawful, was not accounted fo ?—Quando
" enim hoc fadtiun non eft ? Qiiando repichenfum ? Quando
" non pcrniiffum ? Quando denique fait, ut quod licet, noo
" liceret {jin)V' Indeed, after Chriltianity had made fome pro-
grefs, fome of the Pagans declared pofitively againft it. Grotius
has produced fome remarkable teftimonies to this purpofe, parti-
cularly from Dion, Chryfoftomus, Mufonius, and Porphyry (n).
But the generality of the philofophers feem not to have regarded
it as a fin. Origen hath the philofophers of his time particularly
in view, when he fpeaks of thofc, who, like the vulgar, wal-
lowed in the lufts of uncleannefs and lafcivioufneis, and went
promifcuoufly to brothels, teaching that in this there was nothing
contrary to decency and good morals. Ai^a.ay.ov-rn ij.v ttocvtoh
Tra^d TO v.et^'rixov twto yiviSrai {o). The Stoics, who were the
moft famous teachers of morals in the Pagan world, yet carried it
fo far as to maintain, that it is not abfurd or unreafonable to co-
habit with a harlot, ^7) tTaipce. avvaueiy, or to get a livelihood by
fuch pradticcs, as Sextus Empiricus informs us (/>). The Evan-
gelical Precept, therefore, which forbids fornication as a fin, and
contrary to the Divine Law, is not without reafon produced by fome
judicious authors as an inftance of a moral precept not to be found in
(w) Orat. pro M. Caelio, cap. 20.
{n) Grot, in Matt. v. 27.
(e) Orig. com. Celf. lib. iv. p. 177. edit. Spenfcr.
ip) Pyrrhon. Hypotyp. lib. iii. cap. 24.
the
Chap. VI 1 1, of Morals •which relates to Chajilty and Purity. i j j
the writings of the antient Pagan philofophers. The learned Dr.
Sykes, indeed, will not allow this. But all that he offers to the
contrary only (hews, that it was looked upon as having a turpitude
in it for women to proftitute themfelves [q) : but he has pro-
duced no teftimony to prove that it was accounted a fin in the
men to make ufe of fuch proftitutes ; or that the philofophers,
before the coming of our Saviour, prohibited or condemned it as
a vicious praflice, and contrary to good morals, except when it
was carried to an excefs. It is not, therefore, {o much to be
wondered at, that all manner of impurity abounded fo much in
the Pagan world, fince even their wifeft men were fo loofe in
their notions as well as in their pradtice. To convince men of the
evil of that impurity which fo greatly prevailed, was one noble
defign of the Gofpel, as St. Paul fignifies to the Chriftian con-
verts, in that excellent paflage, i ThefT. iv. 3, 4, j. " This is
" the will of God, even your fanftification, that ye fliould ab-
" flain from fornication : that every one of you (hould poflefs his
" veflel in fandification and honour, not in the luft of concu-
" pifcence, even as the Gentiles which know not God."
Several learned writers on the law of nature, and among others
Puffcndorf, have produced good arguments to prove, that the
conjuntlion of men and women out of marriage, and a vague and
licentious commerce between tjic fexes, is contrary to the law of
nature and rcafon. There is alfo a remarkable paflage to the
(q) Dr. Sykes's Principles and Connexion of Natuml and Revealed Religion,
p. 412.
X a fame
ij(5 Modern Dei/is ollow great Liberties Part 11.
fame purpofe, from M. dc Montefquieu, whicli the reader may
find above, p. 5 i ('')• To which may be added another pafliige
from the fame celebrated author, where lie obferves, That " tlierc
" are fo many evils attending the lofs cf virtue in a woman, the
" whole foul is fo degraded by it, and fo many other faults follow
*' upon it, that in a popular rtate public incontinence may be re-
" garded as the greateft of misfortunes, and a fure prognoftic of
" a change in the conftitution (;)." And yet if tiiis matter had
been left merely to the judgment of philofophers, there was no
likelihood of their determining the point : and there was great
need of an exprefs Divine Law and Authority, to afcertain our
duty in this refpedl, and enforce it upon us by the moft powerful
fandlions.
From the inftances which have been produced it fufficiently
appears, that as to that part of moral duty which relates to the
government of the fenfual appetites and paflions, the philofophers,
even thofe of them that faid the noblcfl things concerning virtue in
general, and the neceffity of keeping the fleflily appetite in a due
fubjedtion to reafon, were greatly deficient, and not to be depended
upon as proper guides to mankind. The fame may be obferved
concerning thofe among the moderns, who fliew the greateft zeal
for the abfolute clearnefs and fufiiciency of the law of nature, in-
dependent of all Divine Revelation. It is to be feared, that if left
merely to themfelves, and to what they would call the didates of
(r) Sec L'Efpiit dcs Loix, Vol. I. livic xvi. chnp. 12.
{s) Ibid, livrc vli. chap. 8. Sec alfo Vol. II. livre xxiii. chap. 2.
nature
Chap. VIII. isith regard (o the fenfiial PjJJions. jjj
nature and reafon, they would prove very loofe interpreters of that
law, in that part of it which relates to the reftraining and govern-
ing the carnal appetites. Some of them, in the accounts they give
of natural religion and law, make it to confifl: in worfliipping
God, and being juft to men, and loving one's country ; but fcarce
take any notice at all of temperance and purity (/) : or at leaft
they allow much greater indulgence in this refpeft, than is con-
fiftent with that purity of heart and life which Chriftianity re-
quires. Dr. Tindal feems to lay no other reftraint on the fle/hly
concupifcence, than that it be gratified in fuch a manner, that the
fpecies may be propagated, and the happinefs of the perfons
promoted : and of this, according to his fcheme, every man
muft be a judge for himfelf, according to the circumffances he
is in (tt). Lord Bolingbroke has no great notion of the virtue
or obligation of chaftity, which he refolves into a vanity inherent
in our nature of appearing to be fuperior to other animals. He fays,
That " the fhame of modefty is artificial, and has been infpired
" by human laws, by prejudice, and the like caufes : and thinks
" the law of nature does not forbid inceft, except it be perhaps
" that of the higheft kind." He concludes, that " Increafe and
" multiply is the law of nature. The manner in which this
(t) This feems to be the fcheme of the famous M. Dc Voltaire, In his poem on
Natural Religion. Sec Abbe Gauchet's Lettrcs Critiques, tome IV. Iettre37,
And, indeed, if wc may judge from many paffigcs in the works of that very inge-
nious author, chaAity and purity, and the exercifing a due government over the
fenfual paflions, does not feem to make a neceffary part of his fcheme of religion
and morals.
(u) See Anfwcr to Chriflianity as old as the Creation, Vol. I. p. 203. 2d edit.
I ** pradice
1 jS Modern DetJ}s allow great Liberties, &c. Part II.
" practice (hall be executed with the greatcft advantage to fociety,
*• is the law of man (x)." Here this matter is left wholly to po-
litical confidcrations and human laws, without any Divine law to
reftrain or regulate it. And what fcandalous liberties this way
have been countenanced and encouraged by the laws of many na-
tions, I have before had occafion to fliew. The author of the
famous book. De I'Efprit has given a large account of them, and
feems himfelf to be for allowing an almoft boundlefs indulgence
to the flefhly concupifcence. And it may be obferved concerning
many of the foreign writers, who profefs to be admirers of Natural
Religion, and are thought to be no friends to Revelation, that
they have written in a very loofe manner : they abound in lafci-
vious anecdotes, and (lories of gallantry ; and paint impure fcenes
and plcafures in a very alluring ftyle, at the fame time intermixing
ftrokes againfl Religion. But furely authors who are fo loofe io
their writings are not very proper to be guides in matters of reli^
gion and morality. It looks a little odd, that men who fet up for
delivering mankind from fupcrftition, and leading them in the
paths of reafon and virtue, Ihould, inftead of endeavouring to
corredl and reftrain the prevailing licentioufnefs of manners, open
a wide door to libertinifm and impurity.
{x) BolJngbroke's Woiks, Vol. V. p. 172. et fcq. edit. 4(0.
CHAP.
Chap. IX. Stoics the moji eminent of the Pagan Morali/ls. i j-p
CHAP. IX.
The Stoics the mojl eminent teachers of morals in the Pagan world.
Mightily admired and extolled both by antients and moderns.
Obfervations on the Stoical maxims and precepts with regard to
pi-ety towards God. Their fcheme tended to take away^ or very
much weahn, the fear of God as a piimjhcr of fn. It tended
alfo to raife men to a Jlate of felffufficiency and independency t
inconfijlent with a due veneration for the Supreme Being.
Extravagant f rains of pride and arrogance in fame of the prin-
cipal Stoics. Confefjion of fin in their addrejes to the Deity made
no part of their religion.
IF the people had been to depend upon any one kO. of phUo-
fophers, for leading them into right notions of moral duty,
the Stoics feem to have bid the faireft for it, as they made the
higheft pretences to a pure and fublime morality. Many ad-
mirable precepts and moral inftrudions are to be fovmd in their
writings, and the main principle which lay at the foundation of
their whole fyftem was this, that virtue is the chief, the only
good.
A celebrated author, M. Dc Montefquieu, exprefles his admi-
ration of the Stoics in very high terms. He fays, that " of all
" the fcdls of philofophers among the antients, there was none
" whofc principles were more worthy of man, or better fitted to
5 ." make
1 6o T/'eir moral Syjlem highly efleetned Part II.
" make men good, than that of the Stoics : and that if lie could
" abftraft a moment from the confidcration of his being a Chri-
" flian, he could not help regarding the cxtindtion of the fed of
" Zeno as a misfortune to the human race: that if it were
•* chargeable with carrying things too far, it was only with rc-
'' fpe(ft to thofe things which had a certain grandeur in them,
" the contempt of pleafures and of. pain: that whilft they re-
*'/garde'd~ riches and honours, pains and pleafures, as vain things,
** tl^ey were wholly employed in labouring for the happinefs of
'" mankind, and in exercifing the duties of fociety, for the good
" of which they looked upon themfelvcs to be born and dcftincd :
" and this without looking for any other rewards than what
" were within themfelves ; as if being happy in their philofophy
" alone, nothing but the happinefs of others was capable of aug-
" menting their own." I would obferve by the way, that this
ingenious writer feems here not to be quite exafl. For, according
to the Stoic principles, the happinefs of a wife man is complete
in himfelf, abfolutely independent on that of others, and incapable
of receiving any addition from it. This excellent author adds,
that " it looked as if the Stoics regarded that facred fpirit, which
"■ they believed to be in them, as a kind of favourable provi-
" dence, which watched over the human race." And that
" this fe£l alone knew how to make good citizens, great men,
" and good emperors {y)"
iy) L'Efpiit (Jcs Loix, Vol, II. liv. xxW. chap. lo. p. 157, 158. edit.
Edinb.
There
CSa.ip. IX. both ly Aniienls and Moderns. i«5i-
•■• There is alio a fine encomium on the principles of the Stoic
philofophy, in the learned Gataker's Prajloquium or Preliminary
Dilcourfe prefixed to his excellent tranflation and commentary on
Antoninus's Meditations. He there gives a fummary of the Stoical
maxims and principles, both with refpedl to the duties of piety
towards God, and thofe we owe to man, or the focial duties and
afl^edions (r). The paflages he produces to this purpofe are al-
mofl: all taken from Epidietus and Antoninus : both of whom
lived after Chriftianity had made fome progrcfs, and had fpread
among many of the people the knowledge of God, and of a pure
morality. Thefe two excellent philofophers feem to have carried
the dodrine of morals to a greater degree of perfedion than any
of the more antient Stoics. And any one that would form a
iudgment of the Stoical fyflem, merely from the fummary which
that learned man gives out of their writings, mufl: needs have a
very advantageous notion of it, as having a near atlinity to the
rules laid down in the Gofpcl. I am far from denying to the
Stoics their juft praifes. But, in order to our forming a right and
impartial judgment, it is proper to take their whole fyftem to-
gether, and not the fair fide of it only. Several inftances may be
mentioned, fome of them of confiderable importance, in which
they were defedive, others in which they carried things to an
extreme. From whence it will appear, that the Stoical dodrines
and precepts were not fufHcient guides to mankind, nor exhibited
(2) The reader may fee this part of Gataker's Preliminary Difcourfe trandated,
with the references to the feveral padagcs, and fome additional notes, at the end
of the Glafgow tranflation of Antoninus's Meditations.
Vox.. II. Y a complete
1 62 Tie Stoical Prccepti deficient with regard Part IL
a complete rule of moral duty, and confequently, furnifli no jufl
objedlon againft the ufefulnefs and neceflity of the Chriftian Re-
velation.
1 fhall begin with fome obfervations on the Stoical dodrines
and precepts with regard to the duties of piety towards God.
This is, by their own acknowledgment, the noblefl: and molt
important part our duty. That great philofopher and emperor
Marcus Antoninus advifes " to do every thing, even the moft
" minute, as mindful of the conne(5lion there is between divine
" and human things. For (fays he) you will neither rightly
" difcharge any duty to man without a due regard to divine
" things, nor, on the other hand, any duty to God without a
" regard to human things [a)." And again he declares. That
" the foul is formed for holinefs and piety towards God, no lefs
" than for juftice towards men." And he adds, that " thefe are
" rather more venerable than ads of human juftice." MaAAar ^
One great defed which runs through their nobleft precepts of
piety, is, that the duties they prefcribe of devotion, fubmiflion,
ahfolute refignation, truft and dependence, prayer, praife and
thankfglving, are promifcuoufly rendered to God and to the gods.
There are many paffagcs ia the writings of the Stoics, which
would defervc the higheft prnifc, if undcrftood cf the duty wc
(-j) Anton. Mcdit. book iii. LS\. 13.
(/.) Ibid, book xi. fcft. 20.
owe
Chap. IX. to the Duths of Piety to^tcurrds GoJ. i6?
owe to the one true God ; but there are numerous other pallages in.
which they prefcribe the fame duties to a multiplicity of deities.
Zeno defines piety to be " the knowledge of the worfliip of the
" gods." He taught, that " wife men are pious and religious,
" and underfland the rites relating to the gods : that they facrifice
" to the gods, and are acceptable to them, and that they alone
'' are priefts {c)." Thus their precepts of piety are fo managed
as to uphold the people in their polytheifm. This holds true,
even of Epiftetus and Antoninus j for a diftindl proof of which I
refer the reader to the former volume of this work, in the latter
part of the fourteenth chapter ; and it muft be obferved, that thofe
which are eminent afts of piety, when rendered to the one true
God, are very culpable adls of idolatry, when dire.dled to falfe and
fi(fl:itious deities.
An eflential part of religion, and upon which a great flrefs is
laid in the Holy Scriptures, is the fear of God. This is a difpo-
fition becoming reafonable creatures towards the Supreme Being,
and which his infinite perfcdions, his juftice and purity, and fo-
vereign dominion, juftly demand from us. But with regard to
this, the Stoics feem to have been greatly deficient. I do not
deny, that they prefcribed a fear of reverence or veneration. 'AJa
^sUr, " reverence the gods," was one of their precepts, and is
urged by Antoninus. But there is a fear of God as the juft pu-
ni(her of vice and wickedncfs, which is alfo of great importance
in religion in the prefent ftate of mankind, and this had properly
(i.) Diog. Lacrt. lib. vii. f^gm. iiy.
Y % no
T 6*4 The Stoical Precepts deficient with regard Part ir,
no place in the Stoical fyftem. Zcno makes it one of the requi-
fites to happinefs, not to fear the gods. And pcrfcdt liberty and
tranquillity of mind, according to Seneca, confifts in neither fear-
ing the gods nor men, and in a man's having an abfolute power
over himfelf, " Quaeris qujE fit ifta? [tranquillitas animi et ab-
" foluta libertas] " He anfwers, " Non homines timere non
" dcos : in feipfum habere maximam poteftatem : ineftimabile
*' bonum eft fuum fieri (^)." And indeed, according to their
fcheme of principles, and the idea they give of a wife man, it is
not in the power of God to hurt him, or to hinder his being com-
pletely happy. For as to what are accounted external evils and
bodily pains, they are really no evils at all, and the wife man can
enioy himfelf, and be perfedlly happy in the fevered torments:
and as to his mind, he can wrap himfelf up in his own virtue,
which is felf-fufficient and independent : fo that it may be faid,
not only that God will not, ' but that he cannot do any thing to
render him unhappy [e)..
To which it may be added, that the Stoics advanced fuch a
notion of the Divine Goodnefs, as tended to free men in a great
(f/) See at the end of his 75 th epifllc.
{e) The Stoics, tlirough an affixation of greatnefs of mind, deftroj'ed, as far as
in them lay, the influence of fear in mortals, by taking away the fear of the gods,
of pain, ficknefs, difgrace, and death, which tends to fubvcrt one of the ra.Vm prin-
ciples of government, both human and divine. Any one that has made due re-
fltflions on the ftate of the woild, and on human nature, muft be feniible that
the p.i/llun of fear is implanted in the heart of man for very wife ends, and, if pio-
perly made ufe of, may anfwer very important purpofes. It fcems evident, that
this is one w.ay by which tJie Author of Nature defigncd mankind fliould be go-
verned; and that it is this v.'hich gives force to the fan^ions of law, .and \Aiihout
which they would have fniall cfrec''t,
ineafure
Chap. IX. to the Duties cf Piety toicards Gcd. \(,^
mcafure from the fear of God, and was fcarce confiltent wltli
punitive juflice. Antoninus declares, fpeaking of the Intelligence
which governs the univerfe, that no man is hurt by it (/'). I do
not remember that he ever fpeaks of God's being angry with bad
men for their wickednefs: nor indeed can I well fee what room-
there is for it upon his fcheme. Some of the reafons which are
urged by him and Epidletus, and which I (hall particularly con--
fider afterwards, to fliew that good men (liould not be angry at
the wickednefs of others, would equally prove, if they were jufb
and well founded, that God ihould not be fo. And accordingly,
never do Epidetus or Antoninus, as far as I remember, give any
intimation of God's calling men to an account, and punifliing
them for their fins. Antoninus fays, That " the gods in a long
" eternity muft always bear with a numerous wicked world (f^)."
Tlie Stoics, indeed, acknov/ledged an imperial head of the uni-
verfe, and maintained that the world v/as governed by laws: but
they allowed no proper fandtions of rewards and punifhments to
enforce obedience to thofc laws, but fuch as neceflarily flow from
the nature of the adtions themfelves. They aflirmed, that their
own virtues were the only rewards of the good and virtuous, and'
their own vices the only punifhments of the wicked. There are
many pafiages of Epidtetus to this purpofe (/)). So Seneca fays,
that the greateft punifliment of an injury that is done, is the
(/) Anton. Medit. book vi. feft. i.
{g) Ibid, book vii. fc(fl. 70,
(/;) The reader ra.nyconfult his Diflcrtraions, booki. ch.-ip. 12. fetft. 2. book lii.
chap. 7. at the end. And ibid. chap. 24. fcft. 2. and book iv. chap. 9. feft. 2.
h.wing
i66 The Stoical Precepis deficient with regard Part 11.
having done it. " Maxima eft injuriae facSta; poena, fecille : nee
" quifquam gravius afficitur, quam qui ad fupplicium poenitentia;
" traditur (/)." This feems to be a noble way of talking, and to
argue high notions of the intrinfic excellency of virtue, and the
evil and deformity of vice and fin. But if this were all the pu-
nifliment wicked men were to expeft, to be left to their own re-
flexions, and to the natural confequences of their own adtions,
^vithout any farther puniiliment to be inflicted upon them by a
governing authority, it would be of the moft pernicious confe-
quence to the peace and order of the moral world. No human
government could fubfift upon this foot : and if no other pu-
niflnnent were to be expeded from God, it would go a great way
to banifli the fear of God from among men. Plutarch obferves,
that the famous Stoic Chryfippus, in his books againft Plato, con-
cerning juftice, fays, that " Cephalus did not rightly deter men
" from injuftice by the fear of the gods ; and that many things
" may be probably offered to the contrary, impugning the dif-
" courfe concerning divine punilhments, as nothing different from
" the tales of Akko and Alphito, which women are wont to
" frighten children withal." Yet Plutareh adds, as an inftance
of the Stoical contradidions, that Chryfippus elfewhere fpeaks
of the gods as fending punifliments, that, admoniflied by thcfc
examples, men may not dare to attempt the doing wicked
things {k).
(»') Sen, dc Iia, lib. iii. cap. 26.
(/.) De Stoic. Repugn. Opcr. torn. II. p. 10.53. edit. Xvl.
Ic
Chap. IX. to the Duties of Piely towards God. iSy
It is a noted faying of Seneca, that " no man in his found rea-
" fon fears the gods : for it is a weaknefs to be afraid of the
" things which are falutary." — " Deos nemo fanus timet : furor
" eft enim metuere falutaria (/)." And again, he reprefents the
gods as of a mild and gentle nature, " having it neither in their
" inclination, nor in their power, to hurt any onej and that they
" have no power but what is beneficent and falutary" — " Quas-
" dam funt qux nocere non poffunt, nullamque vim nifi benefi-
" cam et falutarem habent : ut dii immortales, qui nee volunt
" obefTe, nee poffunt. Natura enim illis mitis et placida eft,
" tarn longe remota ab aliena injuria quam a fua (//?)." He ex-
prelTes himfelf to the fame purpofe in another place. " Errat,
" liquis putat illos nocere velle ; non poffunt : nee accipere inju-
" riam queunt, nee facere." i. e. " He errs, who thinks the
" gods arc willing to hurt any man ; they cannot do it: they can
" neither do nor fuffer any hurt or injury." And yet he there
talks of their fending chaftifements, to corredl and reftrain fome
perfons, and putting on a fliew of punifliing them (;z).
I think, upon the whole, it may.be juftly faid, that the doc-
trine of the Stoics tended to take away, or at leaft very much to
weaken and diminlfti, the fear of God as a puniftier of fin. Such
a fear v/as frequently reprefented by them as bafe and fuperfti-
tious. And yet fome fear of this kind feems to be a neceffary
(/) Sen. de Benefic. lib. iv. cap. 19.
(;n) Sen. de Ira, lib. ii. cap. 27.
('») Sen. epift. 95.
and'
i68 tie Stoical Precepts deficient "with regard Part II.
jind mofl uleful part of the religion of finful creatures, ami is one
of the moft powerful prefervatives againfl fin and wickednefs.
Accordingly, it is what our Saviour mofl exprefly prefcribes, at
the fame time that he direds his difciples not to be afraid of the
power or difpleafure of the greateft man upon earth, Luke xii,
4. 5-
Tliere is another part of the Stoical fyftcm, which is not very
confiftent with that profound veneration for the Supreme Being,
and that humble fenfe of our entire dependence upon him, which
is a neceffary branch of true piety. They propofed to raifc men
to a Hate of abfolute independency, and they thereby put them
upon aifcdiing a kind of equaUty with God himfelf. The notion
they had of making the fouls of men effluxes and portions of the
Divini^ty had a manifefl: tendency to cherirti this prcfumption.
That this was the nption even of the bed: of the Stoics, fucli as
Epiftetus and Antoninus, appears from exprefs paffages quoted
from both thefe excellent philofophers in the former part of this
work, chap. xii. To what was there obfcrvcd, I fliall here add
one paffage more from Epidtetus. " As to the body (faith he),
" thou art a fmall part of the univerfe ; but in refpedl of the
" mind or reafon, neither worfe nor lefs than the gods. Will
" you not place your good there, where you arc equal to the
" gods (o) ?"
I cannot think it becoming the veneration we owe to the Su-
preme Being, to aflcrt, as Epidletus does, that the will of man
(») Epift. Diflert. book i. ch.ip. I2. fe(^. 2.
is
Chap. IX. to the Duties of Piety toivavdi Go J. \6^^
is unconquerable by God himfclf. In oppofition to the tlirentning,
" I will fetter thee," he anfwers, " What fiiyeft thou, man ?
" Fetter me! Thou wilt fetter my feet; hut Jupiter himfclf can-
" not overcome my choice;" i. e. my deliberate eledion or de-
termination. Tr\v 'iSfocLioiiTW ui' 0 Zguj vixrio-xt SuvxTcii (/>). He
fcems elfewhere to fay, that it is God that hath appointed it to
be {q. " God (faith he) hath given us faculties, by which we
" may bear every event without being dcprelfed or broken by it;
" but, like a good prince, and a true father, hath rendered. them
" incapable of reflraint, compulfion, or hindrance, and entirely
" dependent on our ov/n pleafiire ; nor hath he relerved a power
" even to himfelf, of hindering or retraining them (^)." This
he afterwards explains in this manner. " If God hath conftituted
" that portion, which he hath feparated from his own effence,
" and given to us, capable of being reftrained or compelled,
" either by himfelf or by any other, he would not have been God,
" nor have taken care of us in a due manner (r)." This appears
to me to be a very rafli and prefumptuous way of talking. I do
not well underftand the ftrain of his reafoning. But it feems to be
this : That God hath made us, with refpcd to the freedom of our
will, independent of himfelf, yea, and to have neceflarily made us
fo; becaufe we are parts of God, which he hath feparated from
his own eflence ; and therefore are no more to be conftraincd and
compelled than he is : and that if had made us capable of being
{fj Epi(ft. DiflTert. book i. chap. i. kO:. 6.
(q) Ibid. chap. 6. ka. 6.
(r) Ibid. chap. 17. k(\. 2,
Vol. II. Z compelled,
I/O
The Stoical Precepts deficient idth regard Part II.
compelled, either by hinirelf or by any other, he would not have
been God : for it would follow that he himfelf might be com-
pelled, if we, who are portions of his clTence, might be fo : and
confequently he would not be God. For it is ncceflarily included
in the idea of God, that he is independent, and not liable to coni-
pulfion.
Seneca, Epi<5tetus, and Antoninus, often talk of our having a
God within us, by which they underftand the rational human foul.
And many of the Stoics carried it to fuch a height of arrogance,
that they in effeft equalled their wife men with God, in virtde»
perfeftion, and happinefs. " It is a common conception con-
" cerning the gods (faith Plutarch) that in nothing do they fo
" much excel men as in happinefs and virtue : but Chryfippus
" does not allow them this prerogative." Accordingly, he pro-
duces a paflage from that famous Stoic, in which he faith. That
" Jupiter has no pra;-eminence above Dion in virtue: but that
*' Jupiter and Dion, being both wife, are in like manner helpful
*' or profitable to one another." ' hoi-in ii b^ vjrftgjj^flr t A<a Trf
Ai'w*'©^} <U(peAft£&a« T£ o[j.oiCt>i -vscro ctAArAwc t A/a ^ r /liuva. ao(p8t
&iT«s. Plutarch adds, that the Stoics fay, that " the man who
" does not come lliort of the gods in virtue, does not come fliort
" of them in happinefs, but is equally happy with Jupiter the fa-
" viour, even then when being unfortunate becaufc of difcafcs
" and bodily torments, he puts an end to his own life, provided
" he be a wife man (s)." The fmie author produces another
[s] Plut. dc Commun. Notit. aJvcr. Stoic. Opcr. torn. II. p. 10-6. A. B.
arrogant
Chap. IX. to the Buties cf Piety toicards Gcti. \yi
arrogant faying of Chryfippus, in his third Book of Nature, That
" as it is proper and becoming for Jupiter to glory in hinifclf,
" and in his own life, and to think and fpcak magnificently of
" himfelf, as living in a manner that deferves to be highly fpoken
" of i fo thefe things are becoming all good men, as being in no-
" thing exceeded by Jupiter (/)." To this may be added another
• palTage of Chryfippus, quoted by Stobsus, That " the happinefs
" of good men difi'ereth in nothing from the divine happinefs ;
" and that the happinefs of Jupiter is in nothing more eligible,
" more beautiful, more venerable, than that of wife men [u)."
Seneca has many paffages in the fame flrain. He fays, That
" a wife man lives upon a parity or equality with the gods (x)."
That *' a good man differs only in time from God ( v)." And
this in the Stoical fcheme is no great matter, fince they held that
the length of duration makes no difference as to happinefs. And
accordingly he diredlly afferts, that " God does not exceed the wife
" man in happinefs, though he does in age {z)." To the lame
purpofe Cicero gives it as the fentiment of the Stoics, that " from
" virtue arifcs a happy life, like and equal to the gods, giving
(/) De Stoic. Repugn. Open. torn. II. p. 1038. C. eJlt. Xyl.
{u) Stob. Eclog. Ethic, lib. ii. p. 178. edit. Plantin.
(x) " Sapiens cum diis ex pari vivit." Sen. epift. 59.
{y) " Bonus vir tempore tantum a Deo difFtrt." Idem, dc Providenti.l,
cap. I.
(2) " Deus non viccit fapientcm in felicitate, etiamfi vincflt setate." Idem,
cpifl 73.
Z 2 " place
1 7 2 The Stoical Precepts deficient "with regard Part II.
" place to them in nothing but immoitality, which docs not in
" the kaft conduce to the living happily [a)." Seneca feems to
mention it to the advantage of the wife man, that " he has the
" art of crowding the whole of happinefs into a narrow com-
" pafs." And he carries it (o far as to fay, that " there is one
" thing in which the wife man excels God, that God is wife by
" the benefit of nature, not by his own clK)ice [b)." He men--
tions with approbation, fome arrogant fayings of Scxtius. y\?,
that " Jupiter can do no more than a good man. Jupiter indeed
" has more things to beflow upon men : but of two good per-
" fons, he is not the better who is richer. — That a wife man fees
" and contemns all worldly goods which others are pofTefied of,
" with an equal mind, as well as Jupiter ; and for this he values
" and admires himfelf the more, that Jupiter cannot make ufe of
" them, the wife man will not (f)."
Thcfe are extravagant ftrains, which cannot be excufed from
impiety, and yet are the genuine confequences of the Stoical prin-
{,;- " E virtutibus vit.i beata exiftit, par et fimilis deorum, nulla re nifi im-
" mortalitate, quas nihil ad beati vivendum pcrlinct, ccdens coeleftibus." Cic.
de Nat. Deor. lib. ii.
(J> " Mehercule magni artificis eft claufilTe totutn in exigiio. — Eft aliquid quo
•' fipicns antcccdat Dctim. lUe naturce bcntficio, non fuo fapicns eft." Sen.
' , Hi 53-
(f) Solebat dicerc Scxtius, " Jovem plus noa pofle quam bonum virum. Piura
■ ivabet Jupiter qua: prarftct hominibus : led inter duos bonos, non eft ir.cliox qui
" locupleiior. — Sapiens tam ccquo animo omnia npud alios videt contemnitque,
" quam Jupiter ; et hoc fe m.agis Aifpicit, quod Jupiter utiillis non poteft, fiipiens
■ noavult," Sen. cpift. 73. at the latter end.
ciples.
Chap. IX. to the Diitiei of Piety ioti-ards God. ij^
ciples. To which may be added, their high pretenfions to felf-
fufficiency. " The condition and charafter of a philofopher (fays
" Epidletus) is, that he expedls all that might profit or hurt hint
" only from himfelf (^)/' This naturally led to felf-confidence
and fclf-dependence. Seneca makes the confiding in a man's felf
the only caufe and fupport of a happy life. " Unum bonum eft:,
" quod beatx vite caufa et fundamentum eft, fibi fidere [c)."
This might be fo explained as to admit of a good fenfe ; but if W9
compare it with the other parts of the Stoical fyftem, it breathes
that arrogance and felf-fufficiency for which they were fo remark-
able, and which naturally flowed from their avowed principles.'
And accordingly Seneca himfelf, in the fame epiftle, reprefcnts it
as needlefs to apply to the gods by prayer, fince it is in a man's
own power to make himfelf happy. " Turpe eft etiamnum deos
" fatigare. Quid vocis opus eft ? Fate ipfe felicem (/ )." And,
fpeaking of virtue and an uniform courfe of hfe confiftent with
itfelf, he faith, " This is the chiefeft good, which if thou pof-
" fefleft, thou wilt begin to be a companion of the gods, not a'
" fupplicant to them." — " Hoc eft fummum bonum, quod ft
" occupas, incipis deorum efle focius, non fupplex." And again,
fpeaking of perfevering in a good mind, he fays, " How foolifli
" is it to wiiTi or pray for it, when thou canft give it to thyfelf ?
" There is no need to lift up thy hands to heaven." — " Quam
" ftultum eft optare cum poftis a te impetrare ? Non funt ad ■
[d) Epl'^. Enchiiid, ch.ip. 43. Mifs Carter's tranflation.
{f) Sen. epift. 31.
(/) Id. ibid.
<' ca'luin '
174 ^/-'^ Slcical Precepts defxient ivith regard Part II.
^' coeliim elevandLC manus (^)," Sec. This was talking con-
fiftcntly with their fcheme, which went upon this principle,
that virtue is properly and abfolutely in our own power, and that
God himrelf cannot overconne our choice. But in this matter,
as in fcveral others, the Stoics \^'ere not always confiftcnt with
themfelves. Seneca himfelf elfewhere gives it as his advice to
his friend, in his tenth epiftle, that he fliould pray for a good
mind and for a found flate, firft of the foul, then of the body.
" Roga bonam mentem, bonam valitudinem aninii dcinde cor-
" poris." There are feveral pafTages both in Epidletus and An-
toninus, which recommend the praying for divine afliftances in
the performance of our duty. The former, fpeaking of the com-
bat againft the pafiions, and appearances of things, faith, " Re-
" member God, invoke him for your aid and protedlor, as failors
" do Callor and Pollux in a dorm (/;)." And Antoninus intimates,
that
{g) Sen. epifl:. 41. It is to be obferved, that it was a general praftice among
the Heathens to pray to their gods ; but then the things they ordinarily prayed for,
were only outward advantages, or what are ufually called the goods of fortune :
as to wifdom and virtue, they thought every man was to depend only upon himfelf
for obtaining it. There is a pafTage of Cotta in Cicero's third book De Nat. Deor.
which is very full to this purpofe, and which I have produced and confidered at
large. Vol. I. chap. xvii. With this may be compared that pafTage of Horace :
" Hoc fatis eft orarc Jovem, qui donat et aufert,
" Det vitam, det opes, jcquum mi auimum ipfe parabo."
Horat. Epift. lib. i. cp. 17.
(/;) Eplftetus here mentions God in the fmgular number, and fo he docs in
(bme other pafTages. And when Chriftian writers meet with fuch pafTages, they
immediately arc for interpreting them of the one true God, the Supreme Lord of
the univcrfe, and of him only. But in this they are frequendy millaken. Plato,
in a pafTage 1 have taken notice of before, Vol. I. chap. xvii. reprcftnts it as the
practice of every prudent man to apply to God by prayer in every undertaking :
but
Chap. IX. to the Duties of Piety toiccirds Qod. \y^
that we ought to pray to the gods to give us their afliftance, even
in things which they have put in our own power : and particu-
larly, that we ought to pray to the gods that they would enable
us to govern our defires and fears with regard to external things.
See his Meditations, book ix. fed:. 40, And both the one and
the other of thefe philofophers gives thanks to God for moral im-
provements. Even Seneca himfelf fecms to fuppofe, that a wife
man ought to do this : though he mentions the giving thanks in a
way that has a great mixture of vain-glory in it. " Ille vera
" glorietur audader, et diis agat gratias." — " Let him boldly
" gloi'y (%'S he) and gire thanks to the gods."
There is another part of religion recommended in Scripture,.
and which ought to accompany our prayers and ads of devotion
in this prefent finful flate ; and that is, the confefling our fins to
God, the humbling ourfelves deeply before him on the account of
but it is evident that this is there to be underftood either of the patron god, whom'
he elfewhere fuppofes to be Apollo, or fome other of the popular deities. Anto-
ninus, in the palTagcs I have here referred to, fuppofes the gods to be the authors
and givers of all good things, and that to them we are to offer up our prayers for
divine aififtances, and our thankfgivings for the bleflings we enjoy. And Epicletus
himftlf, in his Enchiridion, fuppofes the adminiflration of things in the univerfe to
be in the hands of the gods, and that they order, all things with the moft peifecfl
underflaading, juftice, and goodncfs. It was a maxim with the Stoics, that wif-
dom cometh from the gods to men. And if the gods, or any one of them, were
applied to for aUiftance, it would, according to the Pagan notions, have nnfwered
the intention of Epiftetus's advice. It mufl be confidered, that in the Stoical
fcheme, the whole animated fyAem of the univerfj was God, and the feveral parts
of the univerfe were fo many parts, members, or powers of the Divinity, to which
they gave feveral appellations of particular gods or goddefPes. But for a more di-
ftin(fl account of this, I mull refer the reader to what is f;.iJ in the formt-r volume,
chap, xiii, xlv.
them,
1^6 The. Stoiciil Precepts deficient nvlih regard Part II.
them, and imploring the pardon of them. But this fccms not
to be a part of religion which the Stoics prefcribe. Antoninus,
indeed, fpeaks of repentance, « ^sraiiia, as a reprehenfion of a
man's felf for having negleded fomething ufeful. See liis Medi-
tations, book viii. fedt. lo. And he talks of a man's condemn-
ing himfelf for the wrong he hath done, which he compares to
the tearing his own flefli. Ibid, book xii. fedl. 16. But this
feems to have been regarded rather as a punitliment inflidled, than
as a duty required. According to that of Seneca ; " Nee quic-
" quam gravius afficitur, quam qui ad fupplicium poenitcntiae
" traditus." Where he lV)eaks of repentance as the greateft pu-
nifliment a man can fuffer. But I do not find that they prefcribe
and urge it upon men as a duty of religion to acknowledge their
guilt to God, with an ingenuous godly forrow and deep humilia-
tion, for having fmned againft him. Nor, indeed, could they
very confillently do it, confidering the apologies they frequently
make for fin, to flicw that men are not to be blamed or con-
demned on the account of it, which I fhall have occafion to take
notice of.
Under the greateft outward evils and calamities, they did not
diredl men to humble themfelves under the hand of God, and to
refled: upon their fins as the caufes of thofe evils. Inftead of this,
they talked in a high magnificent ftrain, that thefe things were no
evils at all, and that let what would befal them, they had ftrength
furiicient to bear it. " Dare to look up to God (fliith Epidetuf)
" and fay, make ufe of me for the future as thou wilt : I am of
" the fame mind with thee : I am equal to any thing which thou
2 *' flialt
Chap. IX. to the Duties of Piety toivards GoL 177
" fhalt lay upon me." This feems to me to be the meaning of the
phrafe here ufed in the original, iVo,- ei/xl. He adds, " I refufe nothing
" which feems good to thee : lead me where thou wilt (/)," &c.
Here and in what follows, as well as in other parts of his writ-
ings, there are admirable {trains of refignation, and compliance
with the will of God : though I am forry to obferve, that there
is too frequently along with it a mixture of felf-fufficiency, and
confidence in his own ftrength, without that humble fenfe of his
own weaknefs and unworthinefs, which becomes fuch creatures
as we are in this prefent ftate of imperfcdtion and fin {k).
One
(«') Epiiftst. Dlflert. bcx)k il. chap. i6. fe£l:. 4.
{k) That refignation to God which makes fo great an appearance in the writ-
ings gf the Stoics, and which has been often produced as an inftance of their de-
vout temper of mind, feems, if duly examined, to be in feveral refpcfts diiferent
from that meek and humble fubraiffion to the will of God which Chriftianity re-
quires. Stoicifm prcfcribcs an unfeeling temper under affliftions. It is a ftifFnefs
of foul that fcorns to bend under adverlity, and proceeds upon the fuppofition
that no external calamities are evils, or can really hurt us in the leaf! : that they
are things of an indifferent nature, and in which we have no concern : and that
abftrafling from all foreign helps, or hope of future happinefs, the mind has
Arcngth enough in itfelf, to defpife and overcome the very worft events which can
poffibly befal us. The Stoical refignation, ftriftly confidered, leaves no room for
deprecating calamities, or for humble applications to God for removing or allaying
them. This, indeed, has a fliew of an invincible greatnefs of mind, which is apt to
dazzle us ; but does not feem to be fuitable to our condition and circumflances in
this prefent ftate, or to comport with the defigns of Providence. If God fendcth
afflictions and adverfiiics upon us, it muft be fuppofed to be his will that we fliould
have an affe<fling fenfe of them, fo as not to defpife or make light of his correftions
and trials, as if they were things that do not concern us : and therefore to fland
•outagainft them with an unfeeling apathy, cannot be eftcemed a proper refignation
or conformity to the Divine will. How much more agreeable to reafon and hu-
manity is the refignation prefcribed in the Holy Scriptures, and of which our I.or J
Jefus Chrift hath given us the mort perfeft example ? It is a bearing nffli<ftion with
a patient, but with a tender and fiibmiiTive frame of fpirit. It alloweth us the
Vol. II. A a emotions
i^S The Stoical Precepts deficient ivith regard Part II.
One fliould think, that at the time of death, in refleding on ..
the errors of a paft hfe, fome acknowledgments of our faults,
and petitions for pardoning mercy, would be neceflary : yet when
Epictctus introduces a dying man making his addrefs to God,
nothing of this appears : it is all in a flrain of felf-confidence,
aflerting his own perfcdl conformity and obedience to the will of
God, without the leafl acknowledgment of any failure or negledl
of duty he had been ever guilty of (/). I ihall here fubjoin Mifs
Carter's note upon it, in her excellent tranflation of Epidetus.
" I wifh (fays Qxc) it were poflible to palliate the oftentation of this
" paflage, by applying it to the ideal perfedl charadler," [i. e. to
the charafter of the Stoical wife man, which fome look upon to be
only an ideal one.] " But it is in a general way, that Epidtetus
" hath propofed fuch a dying fpeech, as cannot without fliock-
" ing arrogance be uttered by any one born to die. Unmixed as
emotions of furrow under them, and that we ma)' pray to have them removed or
alleviated, but in an entire fubmiffion of our own wills to the will of God, and
without nmrmurlng or repining at any of his difpenfations. It inftrufts us to re-
gard them, in many cafes, not only as trials to exercifc our faith and patience, and
oihcr virtues, but as tokens of the Divine difpleafure againll us for our fins, which
are defigned to humble us, and to put us upon proper methods of correifling our
mifcarriagcs, and conciliating the Divine fiivour. The Stoical wife man could not
confiHcntly confider them in this view. His refignation is rather an aflcnt to the
will of God than a fubmiflion to it, according to that of Seneca : " Nihil cogor,
" nihil patior invitus, Dec fervio Deo fed afTentio "*." Taken in connexion with
the reft of their principles, the refignation prefcribed by the Stoics feems to be a
part of the fcheme they had formed for fccuring that liberty aud fclf-fufficicncy, to
raife men to which is the great aim of their philofophy.
(/) Epift. Dilfert. book iv. chap. lo. feft. 2.
• Sen. de Provid, cap. •'.
Chap. IX. to the Dutiei of Piety foivards God. \y^
*' it is with any acknowledgments of faults or imperfedtions at
" prefent, or with any fenfe of guilt on account of the pad, it
" muft give every fober reader a very difadvantageous opinion of
" fome principles of the philofophy on which it is founded, as
" contradi<flory to the voice of confcience, and formed on an abfo-
" lute ignorance or negled: of the condition and circumftances of
" fuch a creature as man."
And yet fometimes they cannot help making acknowledgments,
which fliould have led them to an humbler way of thinking. " If
" w^e would be equal judges of all things (faith Seneca) let us in
" the firft place perfuade ourfelves, that none of us is without
*' fault." — " Hoc primum nobis fuadeamus, neminem noftrum
" clTe fine culpa." He afterwards adds, " Who is he that pro-
" fell'es himfelf with refpedt to all laws to be innocent ?" — '' Qiiis
" eft ifte qui fe profitetur omnibus legibus innocentem (w)?"
Epidtetus fecms to fay, that " to be abfolutely faultlefs is imprac-
" ticablc (;/)." And that '* the beginning of philofophy, at leafl
" to fuch as enter upon it in a proper manner, is a confcioufnefs
" of our own weaknefs and inability in neceflary things (o)," M.
Antoninus having mentioned gravity, lincerity, a contempt of plea-
fure, an heart never repining againft Providence, with other vir-
tues, charges the perfon he is fpeaking to, by which he probably
there intends himfelf, as having voluntarily come /hcrt of them.
(m) Sen. de Ira, lib. ii. cap, 27.
(«) Epift. Diflert. book iv. chap. 12. kO.. 4.
(s) Ibid, book ii. chap. 11. fcft. t,
Aa 2 And
i8o 'the Stoical Precepti deficient toith regard Part II.
And having mentioned the contrary faults, fwears by the gods..
" you might have efcaped thefe vices long ago (/>)." And is not
here matter of ingenuous confefiion and humiliation before God?
Though it muft be owned, that he clfewhere reprefents all fins
and faults as involuntary.
We fee, by the inftances I have mentioned, that the Stoics
were fometimes obliged to come down from their heights, and.
exprefs themfelves in a lower ftrain. But the general tendency
of their principles led them to an undue felf-exaltation ; and this
entered into the character of their wife and virtuous man. An
inilance of tliis we have in Heraclitus, a philofopher much ad-
mired, by the Stoics, who in many things adhered to the tenets
of his philofophy. Nothing can be more boaftful and afluming,
or difcover a higher degree of pride and felf-fufficiency, than the
manner in which he fpeaks of himfelf in his epiftle to Hermo-
dorus. " I am excellent in wifdom (faith he) : I have performed
" many difficult labours : I have vanquilhed pleafures ; I have
" vanquiflied riches ; I have vanquiflied ambition : I have wreftled
" againft and fubdued cowardice and flattery. Fear and inteni-
" perance have nothing to fay againft me ; forrow is afraid of
" me; anger is afraid of me. For thefe things am I crowned,
'• not by Euryftlieus [as Hercules was] but by myfelf, as being
" my own mafter, and under my own command/' 'EixavraiiiT.^
TctTlwr. See alfo his epiftle to Amphidamas, in which, among.
[p) AntoE. Mcdit, book v. tft. 5.
Other
Chap. IX. to the Duties tf Piety towards God. i8i
other high things, he faith of himfelf, " I fhall not build altars
** to others, but others to me (^)."
That great philofopher Plotinus, fo highly extolled by Mr.
Bayle for his eminent virtues, frequently fpeaks in the fame vain-
glorious flrain with the Stoics : That the wife and virtuous man is
not impreffed by any thing without him : that he accounteth the
death of mortals, the overturning of his city, or any public cala-
mities, no great matter : nor can the captivity of himfelf, or his
neareft friends and relations, in the leaft: diminifh his felicity (r).
That he is void of all fear, trufting in himfelf, -n-iri^aai ex^jraj^
that no evil fhall ever touch him (s). It may help to let us into
the pride of his charadler, that when Amelius invited him to afhft
at a facrifice, which he intended to offer to the gods at a folemn
feflival, he anfwered, " It is for them to come to me, not for me
" to go to them (/)."
Some learned perfons have denied that humility, either as ta
name or thing, is to be found in the writings of the Pagans ; and
it muft be owned, that humility is of a bad found among the phi-
lofophers, and among the StoiciS it is always taken for a vice : but
(5) Stanley's Hifl. of Philof. p. 739. 741, edit. 2J, Lond. 1687.
(r) Plotin. Ennead. I. lib. iv. c.ip. 7.
(j) Ibid. cnp. 14, 15.
(/) Porphyry's Life of Plotinus, prefixed to his works, p. 8. B. The fame.
T.'dn-glorious fpirit animated the Indian brachmans. When Apollonius afl<ed them
wliat they were? larchas, the chief of than, anfwered, that they thought them-
fflvcs gods.
the.
a 82 7he Stoical Precepts iieficient, ($c. Part II.
the word " humble" fometimes occurs in the Pagan writers in a
good fenfe, nor were they altogether Grangers to the virtue in-
tended by it. But if we take humility as it implies, a deep fend-
of our own unworthincfs and infufficiency in ourfelves, and of the
manifold defeds of our obedience and righteoufnefs, accompanied
with a true contrition of heart for our fins, and which carrieth
Ub to acknowledge, that if God fliould enter into ftridl judgment
with us wc could not be juflified in his fight ; this humility,
which is oppofed to felf-confidence and felf-dependence, and
which caufeth us to place our whole truft in the infinite grace and
DitTcy of God for falvation, feems not to enter into the Pagan
fyflems of piety and morality, efpecially that of the Stoics (a).
There is a fpiritual pride and felf-fufficiency running through their
whole fcheme, fcarce reconcilable to that humble frame of fpirit
which our Lord infills upon as a neceflary ingredient in the piety
and virtue of fuch imperfedl creatures as we are in this prefent
ilate. Here then is a remarkable inftance of an evangelical pre-
cept relating to a temper of mind, which is reprefented as of great
importance to our acceptance with God, and which yet is not to
be found in the Pagan moralifts.
{u) It is true, that the Stoics feemed to require, that a man, as a preparative for
philofophy, fhould have a confcioufnefs of his own weaknefs and inability : fee a
palTage to this purpofe in Epiftetiis, cited above, p. 1 79. Bnt the dcfign of their
philofophy, when once a man was engaged in it, was to infpirc him with a con-
fidence in his own llrcngth, and the abfolute fufEclcncy of his own virtue.
C H A P.
Chap. X. Farther Account of the Morals of the Stoics. 183
CHAP. X.
The Stoics gave excellent precepts with regard to the duties men'
owe to one another, let they carried their doSlrine of apathy fo
far, as to be in fome injlances not properly confiflent with a hu'
mane difpoftion and a charitable fympathy. They f aid fine things
■ concerning forgiving injuries and bearing with other men's
faults. But in feveral refpeSls they Carried this to an extreme^,
and placed it on wrong foundations, or enforced it by improper
motives. This is particularly Jhewn with regard to thofe two
eminent philofophers EpiBetus and Marcus Antoninus. The mojl
ant lent Stoics did not allow pardoning mercy to be an ingredient
in a perfeEi cbaraSler,
THE Stoics were particularly remarkable for the precepts
and diredlions they gave with regard to the duties men
owe to one another. They taught that men weie born to be
helpful to each other in all the offices of mutual alhltance and
benevolence, and that they are united by the ftrongeft ties, as all
belonging to one common city of gods and men (x). Many of
their precepts tended to fet the obligations we are under to love
and do good to one another, and to all mankind, in a ftrong and.
affeding light. Yet it muft be acknowledged, that fome parts
of their fcheme were little confiftent with that humanity and
(at) Ciccio dc Finib. lib. iii. cap. 19, p. 2584
mutual
184 ^he Stoical DoSirine of Apathy not >weU conftjlent Part 11.
mutual benevolence, which it was the dcfign of many of their
precepts to recommend.
To fupport their vain-glorious fcheme of felf-fufficiency and
independency, they prefcribed an unnatural apathy. Their wife
man was to be devoid of paflions, of fear and grief, of forrow
and joy. He muft not be grieved for the lofs of wife, children,
or friends, or for any calamity which can befal himfelf or them,
or even for the public diftrefies and calamities of his country.
There is a fragment of a treatife in Plutarch to fliew, that the
Stoics fpeak greater improbabilities than the poets : and he pro-
duces as an inftance of it, their aflerting, that their wife man
continues fearlefs and invincible in the fubverfion of the walls of
his city, and in other great calamities of a public nature {)')•"
Seneca fays, in his 74th epiflle, that " a wife man is not afflidted
" at the lofs of his friends or children." — " Non afHigitur fapiens
" liberorum amiffione aut amicorum." And in the fame epiftle,
among the things which fliould not grieve nor diilurb him,
he reckons " the bcfieging of his country, the death of his
'• children, and the flavery of his parents." — " Oblidio patriae,
" liberorum mors, parentum fervitas (-)." Nor is this merely
an extravagant rant of Seneca, who often gave into an hyperbo-
lical way of expreflion. Epicftetus, one of the graveft and moll:
judicious authors among the Stoics, and who adhered very clofely
{_;■) Plutarch. Opera, tom. II. p. 1057, 1058. edit. Xjl. Fraucof. i6io.
(z) Sen. cpift. 74 . Plotinus cxprcfles himfelf to the fame purpofc. Sec above,
p. 181.
to
Chap. X. ivith Humanity ancl a charitable Sympathy. iSjf
to the principles of their philofophy, exprefleth himfelf to the
fame piirpofe. It is true tliat he fays, " I am not to be un-
*' difturbed by paffion in the fame fenfe that a flatue is, but as
" one who preferves the natural and acquired relations, as a private
■" perfon, as a fon, as a brother, as a father, as a citizen {a)."
And he allows a man " to preferve an affeftionate temper, as be*-
" comes a noble fpirited and happy perfon [b)." It is ufual with
the Stoics to throw in every now and then fome hints, which
feem to corre<5l and foften their extravagant maxims, and reduce
them within the bounds of nature and humanity. But that great
philofopher himfelf has feveral paflages which it is very difficult
for the moft: candid cenfurer to interpret in a favourable fenfe.
Having mentioned thofe which he fays are called " great events,"
viz. wars and feditions, the deftrudlion of numbers of men, and
the overthrow of cities, he afks, " What great matter is there in
" all this ? Nothing. What great matter is there in the death
" of numbers of oxen, numbers of flieep, or in the burning or
" pulling down numbers of nefls of ftorks or fwallows ?" He
affirms, that " thefe cafes are perfeftly alike : the bodies of men
" are deftroyed, and the bodies of flieep and oxen : the houfes of
" men are burnt, and the houfes or ncfts of florks. What is
" there gr^at and dreadful in all this ?" He owns afterwards,
that there is a difference between a man and a ftork ; but not in
body [c). To talk with fiich indifference of great public cda-
{a) Epiift. DifTcTt. book ill. chap. 2. fcifl.^.
{b) Ibid. chap. 24. k(\. 4.
(.) Ibid, book i. chapw 28. fciH, 3.
Vol.. II. B b mltics.
1 8.6 Tbs- Stoical DoStrin^ of Apathy not well conftfient Part I?.
mities, is more a proof of the want of humanity than of a real
greatnefs of mind, and is not well confiftent with a true benevo-
lence towards mankind, or with a generous patriotifm or love to
our country, which yet the Stoics made great profellion of. To
the fame purpofc he expreffes himfelf in another remarkable
paffage, the defign of which is to fignify, that the flaughter of
armies is an indifferent matter; and that it ought not to have given
Agamemnon concern if the Greeks were routed and (lain by ths
Trojans (^). The note of the ingenious tranflator before-men-
tioned upon this paflage appears to me to be a juft one. " As
" the Stoical dodrine all along forbids pity and compaffion, it
" will have even a king look upon the welfare of his people,
" and a general upon the prefervation of his foldiers, as a matter
*' quite foreign and indifferent to him (i')."
With refpcdt to croffcs and adverfe events of a private naturcj
Epidtetus every-where treats them as if they were nothing to us at
all. I fliall mention one paffage of this kind among many others
that might be produced. " A fon is dead (faith he). What hath
" happened ? A iow is dead. Nothing more ? Nothing.——
" A fhip is loft. What hath happened ? A lliip is loft.
" He is carried to prifoii. What hath happened ? He is carried
" to prifon. That he is unhappy, is an addition that every
" one makes of his own." Epidetus adds, That " Jupiter hath
" made thcfe things to be no evils : and that he has opened you
(,/) EpifV. Dlfllit. book ill. chr.p. :2. fcfl. /^.
{e) Ibid. mnrg. note.
. y the
Cliap. X. ivith Humanity and a charitable Sympathy. 1 87
" the door whenever they do not luit you : Go out, man, and
" do not complain (7 )." The reader cannot but obferve, that
tliough he fpeaks with luch indifference of thefe things, as if they
were nothing at all, and lliould not give us the leafl diilurbance,
yet he mofl inconfiflently fuppofcs, tiiat they may be fo grievous
as to render life infupportable j and in that cafe advifes a man to
put an end to his life, that he may get rid of them.
There is little room in the Stoical fcheme for that affectionate
fympathy with others in diftrefs, which Chriftianity requires, and
which is fo amiable a part of an humane difpofition. And they
feem not willing to allow the workings of the natural tender af-
fc<5tions. Epidetus blames Homer for reprefenting Ulyffes as
fitting and crying upon a rock, when he longed to fee his wife.
*' If Ulyffes (fays he) did indeed cry and bewail himfelf, he was
" not a good man {g)" And he elfewhere declai-es, that " no
" good man laments, nor fighs, nor groans (/j)." Yet in his
Enchiridion he fays, " If you fee any one weeping for grief,
" either that his fon is gone abroad or dead, or that he liath
" fuffercd in his affairs, take heed that the appearance may not
*' hurry you away with it. As far as words go, however, do
" not difdain to condefcend to him, and even, if it (hould fo
" happen, to groan with him. Take heed, however, not to
(/) Epia. Difllrt. book ili. chap. S. fefl. 2.
{g) Ibid, book iii. chap. 24. k€t. i,
^{Ji) Ibid, book ii. chap. 13. fcft. 2.
Bb 2 J' groan
1 8 8 T/'t' Stokjl DoStrine of Apathy not •well cwfijient Part II.
•* groan inwardly too (/)." What a flrange philofophy was this !
They might put on an outward appearance of fympathizing with
their friends, but they were to take' great care that there fliould
be nothing in the temper of their minds anfwering to that ap-
pearance.
Thus the Stoics, whilfl they aimed at grcatnefs of mind, in
efFecSt drove to ftifle the kind and humane affections. Epi(5letU3
compares tiie death of a friend to the breaking, of an old pipkin,
in which one ufes to cook his m^at : and afks, '* Muft you die
" with hunger, becaufe you do not ufe your old pipkin ? Do yoa
" not fend and buy a new one {k') ?" Who can without fome
indignation read this mean reprefentation of the death of a beloved
and efteemed friend ? But Marcus Antoninus's good-nature got
the better of his Stoical principles. He flied tears at the death of
his old tutor : and when fome about the court put him in mind
of his ufual firmnefs and fteadinefs, Antoninus Pius replied in hi»
defence i " You mufl give him leave to be a man •. neither philo-
" fophy noi' imperial dignity can extinguifli our natural affec-
" tions (/)." Cato of Utica, rigid Stoic as he was, cairied his
forrow for the death of his brother Caspio to an extraordinary de-
gree. Plutarch, in his account of Cato's life, obferves, that upon
this occafion he fhev/ed himfelf more a fond brother than a philo-
^i) Eplft. Enchirid. ch.ip. iG. Mifs Carter's trr.nflatioiv
(A) Epiift. DiHert. book Iv. chap. lo. fe<f>. 5.
(/) Sec the Life of Marcus Antoninus, prefixed to tlic Glafgow trMiflation of
lis McdicatioDs, p. 1 3,
fcpher.
Ciiap. X. 'witb Humanih and a charitable Sympathy. 1 8 a
fopher, not only in the exccfs of grief, bewailing and embracing
the dead body, but alfo in the extravagant exf)ences of the funeral :
and that this was blamed by fome, as not fuiting with Cato's ufiial
moderation in other things. But how jufdy blameable was that
philofophy which was of fuch a kind, that a man could not adt up
to it, without endeavouring to extinguifli the tendered fentiments
of the human nature ! Our Saviour's weeping over his beloved
friend Lazarus, and the forrows he exprelTed upon a forefight of
the approaching miferics of the Jews, and deflrudion of Jerufalem,
are flriking inftances of the moft humane tenderncfs and friendly
affeftions, mixed with the trueft greatnefs of foul. And ho\T
much more juft as well as amiable is the model of a perfcdl cha-
racter, as adtually exemplified in the life of our blelTed Lord, than
the Stoics, the moft eminent of the Pagan nioralills, were able to
form, even in idea, in the feigned defcription they give us of their
perfetl wife man (w).
With
('«) The Gofpel, in this as wcJI as other inflances, guarJs ngainil extremes.
It allows the tender movements of humanity and compaflion on proper occullons,
but prefcribes a due moderation to be obferved : that we be not fwallowed up of
overmuch forrow, nor mourn as thofe that have no hope. The Stoics thought it
unbecoming their wife man to give way to the movements of forrow in any cafe,
and particularly on funeral occafions. On the other hand, the Chinefe laws and
cuftoms, and Confucius himfclf, their great moralift, feem to have encouraged a
forrow be;ond all rcafcnable bounds. Wc are told concerning that philofopher,
that he conftantly ftiewed great grief on the death of his fiieiids and relatives, and on
occafion of the death of many others, and even carried it to an cxcefs. It was an
old cuftom in China, that the time of mourning for a parent fhould be three years j
this he would have obferved with the utmofl rtriiftnefs, and reproved one of hi»
difciples, who thought fome abatement might be allowed. He approved the con-
duft of an emperor, w!io hid hiinlclf three years in the royal garden or grove
■where liis father was biuied, and abandoaed himfclf to his- grief, fo as not to take
any
I $o TZv Suic.il Doc} rim of Part 1 1.
With regard to tlie forgiving injuries, the bearing with tlie
weaknefTes and fauhs of others, and fhewing a good-will even to
thofe that offend us, which is a noble part of our duty, there arc
many admirable paffages, both in Epidetus and Antoninus, in
whicli this excellent temper and condud is urged and enforced
by a variety of confiderations. Many of the motives to engage us
to it are the fame which are propofed in the Holy Scriptures (/;).
But they fometimcs carry it too far, and place this noble duty on
a wrong foundation, or pufli it to an extreme which nip.y prove
prejudicial. The defign of the eighteenth chapter of the full book
of Epidetus's Differtations,'as given by Arrian, is to flicw that
we are not to be angry with the errors of others. A good precept,
but which he there builds on a foundation that will not bear it,
VIZ. " That all men ad according to their perfuafion : that even
" thieves and adulterers ad from a wrong perfualion or error in
" their judgment, that it is for their advantage to ftcal, or de-
" bauch their neighbour's wife. And vvliile they have this per-
any care of the affaiis of govcrnmmt, or converfe with any body. He fays, that
the antient kings, ^vhom he highly efleetned, .idled after this manner; and that in
the book of offices it is taught, that whca a kaig was dead, his fon and fucceflbr
gave himfelf up to grief for three years, and committed aff.urs during that time
wholly to an adminilhator, who governed in his flead. Scicnt. Sin. lib. iii. P. vii.
p. loo ct 130. 1 think the raofl partial .idmirei" of Confucius and tlie Chinefe
conftitutions miift acknowledge, that this is cairying things to an extreme, which
is both unreafon<ible in itfelf, and prejudicial to focicty.
.(«) Among the many motives to forgivenefs urged by Epiftetus and Antoninus,
1 4o not remember that they ever take notice of that which is particularly infifted
on by our Saviour, and is of the higheft tonfcquence : " If you forgive men their
" trefpaffcs, your lieavenly Father will alio forgive vou : but if ye forgive not men
" their uefpalfes, neither will your father forgive your tiefpafles." Matt. vi.
lA. '5.-
J *' fuafion.
Chap. X. forgroing Injuries confide red. i ri
" fuafion, they cannot a(5t otherwife. That therefore we ought
" not to be angry at them, nor endeavour to deftroy them, but
" to pity them for their miftakes, and fhew them their errors,
" and they will amend their faults." This is the fubftance of
what Epicletus 'fiys in the firft fedlion of that chapter. The
Gofpel prefcribes all that reafon and humanity requires in fuch a
cafe, but upon far jufler principles. Mifs Carter's note upon it, in
her excellent tranflation of Epidtetus, deferves notice. " The moll:
" ignorant perfons often pradtife what they know to be evil : and
" they who voluntarily fufFer, as many do, their inclination to
" blind their judgment, arc not juftified by following it. The
" dodrine therefore of Epidletus here and elfewhere on this head',
" contradids the voice of reafon and confcience : it deftroys all
" guilt and merit, all puniOiment and reward, all blame of our-
" felves or others, all fenfe of mifbehaviour towards our fellow-
" creatures or our Creator. No wonder that fuch philofophcrs
" did not teach repentance towards God." Epidetus frequently
reprefents ignorance as the caufe of all our faults ('y). And An-
toninus often talks after the fame manner. " It is cruel (fays he)
" to hinder men from defiring or purfuing what appears to them
" as their proper good : and yet you feem in a certain manner to
" be chargeable with this condud, when you are angry at the
•' miftakes and wrong adions of men ; for ail are carried to what
" appears to them to be their proper good. But, fay you, it is,
*' not their proper good. Well: inllrud them then, and teacli.
(o) See his Dififu-tations, book i. chap. 2(5. fefb. i. And ibiJ. chnp. .2S.
fta. 2.
them'
I pa The Stoical DcBrine of Part II.
<' them better : and do not be angry at them (/>)." But it fre-
quently happens, tliat it would be a vain attempt to inftrud them ;
though undoubtedly it would be well done to endeavour, as far
as we can, to make them fenfible of their guilt, and reclaim them
from their evil courfes. But in many inftanccs it is not for want
of knowing what is right that men do wrong, but becaufe they
are carried away by inordinate appetite ; and there is often no other
way of dealing with them, but punifliing and retraining them by
terror. And fo no doubt Antoninus himfelf was obliged to atft, or
he could not well have fulfilled his duty as an emperor in the ad-
miniftration of the government. Epidletus has another pafiage of
the fame kind, proper to be here taken notice of, in which he evi-
dently carries a noble precept too far : " When any perfon doth ill
" by you, or fpeaks ill of you, remember that he ads or fpeaks
" from a fuppofition of its being his duty. Now, it is not pofliblc
" that he fliould follow what appears right to you, but what ap-
" pears fo to himfelf. Therefore, if he judges from a wrong
" appearance, he is the perfon hurt, fince he is the perfon de-
" ceived {q)." To deliver this, as Epidletus fecms here to do, as
a general rule with refpedl to all perfons that do ill to others, or
fpeak ill of them, is fctting an excellent duty concerning bearing
injuries and calumnies on a wrong foundation. For many cafes
may happen, in which the mofl extenfive charity will not be able
to fuppofe, that the injurious perfon or calumniator thinks he docs
right, and is honeftly deceived in what he looks upon to be liis
{p) Anton. Mcdit. book vi. fc6l. 27.
(7) See his EnchiriJ. clup. 42. Mifs Carter's tranflation.
7 duty.
Cliap. X. for^i'^fiS I^j^f^^^ confidered. ip^
duty. It frequently happens, that perfons fpread calumnies againft
others, knowing them to be falfe and injurious, from an envious
and malicious principle.
It was a maxim of Socrates and Plato, that " as all error is in-
" voluntary, fo no man is willingly wicked or unjufl in his aftions,
" fince all defire truth and goodnefs." To this Marcus Anto-
ninus refers book vii. fed. <^3. and he himfelf talks to the fame
purpofe : " Men are not to be blamed (fays he) for they never
" do wrong willingly." And again: " If any do wrong, furely
" it is unwillingly and ignorantly. It is unwillingly that any foul
" is deprived of truth by erring, or of juftice by a conduct un-
" fiiitable to the objedl (r)." But this way of talking is more
good-natured than jufl. For certain it is, that there are many
perfons, who knowingly and wilfully commit adlions, which they
are fenfible are unjufl, impelled by pride, envy, avarice, ambition,
and fenfual appetite. All errors are not involuntary : they may often
be faid to be voluntary, fince they are owing to a wilful negleft of
examining and ufing proper means for information. And to exclude
the will from any part of wicked actions, and to reprefcnt them all
as owing to involuntary errors of judgment, is to excufe the worfl;
of crimes, and take away the evil of them. Antoninus fometimes
plainly fuppofes the contrary. In a pafiage quoted before, having
mentioned feveral virtues, he charges himfelf, or the pcrfon he is
there fpeaking to, as having voluntarily, \y.m-, come fliort of them [s).
(r) Anton, book xii. fci!>. 12. and book xl. feft. i8.
(j) Ibid, book v. {i^. 5.
Vol. 11. Cc And
1^4 ■ '^^■'^ Stoical DcSJrine of Part II.
clfevvhei'e he faith, that " he that willingly lies, kwv -{iv^ iuS^,@^,
" is guilty of impiety; for the nature of the whole is truth, and
" the caufe of all truth [t)" Wliere he fuppofcs, contrary to
what he himfelf and Plato had faid, that a man may willingly de-
part from truth.
Another reafon which Antoninus frequently gives for not being
angry at the faults of others, is drawn from their being necelTauy
and unavoidable. Thus, to induce us not to be angry at any man's
faults, he would have us confider that he is forced to it : and aflis,
" What elfe could he do {u) ?" This is a thought which he fre-
quently repeats in various forms. Speaking of thofe that hzxc
wrong maxims of good and evil, pleafure and plain, glory and
ignominy, he fays ; " If they ad wrong, we ought to recollcdt
" that they are under a neceflity of afting thus {x)." He com-
pares one that does wrong to a man whofe armpits or breath are
difagreeable : " How can the man help it (fiys he) that has fuch
" a mouth, and fuch armpits (_>•) ?" And again, " One who
" expedls a vicious man fliould not do wrong, is as abfurd as oiie
" expecting a fig-tree fliould not produce the natural juice of
" the figs, or that an infant fliould not cry, or a horfe fliould not
" neigh, or fuch other neceflary things. What can the man do,
(A) Anton. Mcdit. book ix. fert. i.
(//) Ibid, book X. fe<5l. 30.
(vx) Ibid, book viii. fciTl. 14.
Ck) Ibid, book V. ft-a 28.
*' that
Chap. X. ■ forgiving Injuries conJidereJ. 19^
" that has fuch dlfpofitlons ?" I do not deny, but that to ex-
prefs the power of evil habits, which induce a moral impotcnc)%
comparifons may be fometimes aptly drawn from the things that
are phyfically neceflary; but great care fliould be taken not to
carry it too far, as if bad men were not to be blamed for the evil
actions they commit, and as if thofe adlions were what they could
not pofTibly avoid doing. And I think it muft be acknowledged
that Antoninus has puflied it to an extreme. I fliall only mentioiT
one paffage more to the fame purpofc. " It is the part of a mad-
" man (fays he) to exped impoflibilities : now it is impoffible that
" vicious men ftiould adl another part than we fee they aft (2)."
This is not true, if applied to particular anions. There is not one
bad adion which a wicked man commits, but it was poflible for
him in that very inftance to have adled otherwife.
(z) Anton. Medit. book v. fecft. 17, The author of the book De L'Efprit
obferves, that the famous Mr. Fontenelle contemplated the wickcdnefs of men
without fliaipiiefs or bitternefs, confidering it as the necelTary eftert " de I'en-
" chainemcnt univerfcl," — " of the univerlal concatenation of things." See De
I'Efprir, difc. 4. chap. 14. But if this was a jufl rcafon for not cenfuring or being
angry at any man for his wicked deeds, he ought, upon the fame principle, not to
ha\e acknowledged a good man's merit, or to ha\e allowed him any pr.iife cm- reward
for his virtuous aftions. Another French author, who maintains tiie fame prin-
ciple of univerfal nccefHty, does not draw fo gooJ-natured a conchifion from it as
Mr. Fontenelle : for though, he thinks, the criminal perfon fliould not feel any
remorfc for tlie evil he has done, becaufc he could not help it, yet he fuppofes it may
be necedliry for the public good to deflroy him, as we do mad dogs or ferpcrits.
See Le Difcours fur la Vie Heureufe, at the end of Lcs Penfees Philufophiques.
And, indeed, if one man is neceflitated by the fatal chain to commit bad aftions,
why may not another man be equally fuppofed to be neceffitated to hate, to cen-
fure, and punilh him ? So that at the bottom this doflrinc will bring no great
comfort even to evil-doers, nor be a good reafon for cxerciflng forbearance towards
them, or forgiving them,
C c a Another
ig6 ne Do6frine of forgiving Injuriei Part 11.
Another confideration which is infifted upon both by Epiftetus
and Antoninus, to engage us to bear with thofethat offend us, and
not to be angry at them for any thing they do to us, is, that in reality
and they do us no injury. Epidletus lays it down as a maxim, that
" one cannot be in fault, and another the fufferer(fl)." Upon which
the ingenious tranflator very properly remarks, " This is a Stoic
" extravagance ; the very thing which conftitutes the fault of
" the one in this cafe, is that he makes the other fuffer." Epic-
tetus has many good things about patience under injuries. But
the truth is, that, according to him, no injury can be done to a
good man. " No one (fays he) either hurts or benefits another :
" but the principles which we hold concerning every thing, it is
** this that hurts us, this that overturns us {b)" He gives it as a
maxim, that " one man doth not hurt another, but that every
" man is hurt and profited by his own adlions (c)." In like man-
ner Maximus Tyrius has an exprefs diflertation to prove, that an
injury is not to be retaliated. And he goes upon this principle,
that a good man cannot be injured by a wicked man ; becaufe he
has no good thing which it is in the power of a bad man to fpoil or
deprive him of, and that a good man can neither do nor fuffer an
injury. Seneca often talks in the fame ftrain, efpecialiy in his
tradl, Quod in fapientem non cadit injuria {d). So alfo Anto-
ninus fays, " I cannot be hurt by any of them, fince none of
(a) Epi<fV. DilTert. book ii. chap. 13. fed. z.
(b) Ibid, book iv. chap. 5. fe<S. 4.
(c) Ibid. chap. 13. fefl. 2.
(J) See particularly cap. 1 5 et 16,
•' thcni
Chap. X. placed l>y the Stoics on a wrong Foundation, 1 07
*' them can involve me in any thing diflionourable or de-
'' formed (<?)." And he often argues, that we ought not to be
angry at any injuftice men do to us, becaufe they cannot hurt us.
But though this confideration may be fo managed, as greatly to
moderate our refentments, yet if it be underftood in its rigour,
according to the Stoical principles, it leaves nothing properly
praife-worthy in forgivenefs, or rather leaves no room for forgive-
nefs at all. For if no injury be done me, where is the exercife of
a forgiving difpofition ? How much jufter and nobler is it to be
able to fay, he hath hurt and injured me, yet I forgive him: I
bear him no malice or ill-will, but am ready, if a proper oppor-
tunity offers, to render him good for his evil ? which is the tem-
per ChrifUanity requires.
There is anotlier confideration urged by that worthy emperor
and philofopher Marcus Antoninus, which deferves to be exa-
mined. It is to this purpofc : that the injury done us is not hurt-
ful to the whole, and what is not hurtful to the whole, cannot be
really hurtful to any particular part. " What is not hurtful to the
" ftate or city (fays he) cannot hurt the citizen. Make ufe of this
" rule upon every conception of any thing as hurting you. If
" the city (by which he there means the univerfe) be not hurt
" by it, I cannot be hurt (/)." And again : " If this event be
•' not hurtful to the whole, why am I difturbcd by it ? Nay,
(e) Anton. Medlt. book ii. k(X. i.
(/) Ibid, book V. feft. 22.
" who
i^S' 'The Do^rine of forgiving Ifijur'ie! Part II.
** who can hurt the whole (f )?" To this may be added what he
elfewhere obfcrves, " there is no univerfal wickednefs to hurt tlie
" univerfe. Particular wickednefs of any individual hurts not
" another, it hurts himfelf only ; who yet has this gracious pri-
" vilege, that as foon as he heartily defires it, he may be free from
" it altogether [h)." I do not well fee how it can be faid upon
thefe principles, that there is any hurt in fin at all. It cannot hurt
the univerfe, it cannot hurt any other man but him that commits
it, nor, according to this way of reafoning, can it hurt the man
himfelf. For nothing can hurt any part that does not hurt the
whole : and fin is fo far from hurting the whole, that according
to the Stoic principles it contributes to the harmony of the uni-
verfe, and as fuch may be faid to be agreeable to the nature of the
whole (/'). And he exprefly aflerts, that " nothing advantageous
" to the whole is hurtful to the part (/.')."
I fliall mention fome other paflages which tend to illuftrate
this. " When you are difguftcd, fays he, with the impudence
" of any one, immediately afk yourfelf. Can the univerfe then be
" without the fliamelefs? It cannot. Do not demand then what
" is impoflible. For this is one of thofe fhamelefs men who
[g) Anton. Medit. fc(^. 35.
{h) Ibid, book viii. fcft. 55.
(i) According to the account Plutarch gives from Cliryfippus, fin tends to the
good of the whole. He fays, that virtue and vice, like the difference and variety
of the feafons, tend to the harmony of the univerfe. De Stoic. Repug. Opera,
p. 1050, 1051, lom. 2. edit. Xyl. See alfoibid. p. 1066.
(*) Anton. Mcdit. book x. feft. 6.
" muft
Chap. X. placed by the Stoics en a icrcftg FoioiJaticfi. ipc;
'* muft needs be in the univerfe. Have the fame queftlon alfo at
" hand, when (hocked at the crafty, the faithlefs, or the faulty
" in any Tefpeifl.** See Ant. Medit. b. ix. fed;. 42. Here nnd in
feme other pafTages he fpeaks as if thofe perfons and a6tIons,
which feem to us bad and vicious, were fo conncded with the
whole, as to be neceflary to the order of it, and without which
the whole would run into confufion. And accordingly he fup-
pofes, that every event which comes to pafs tends to the profpe-
rity and felicity of Jupiter himfclf in his adminiftration, who ne-
ver would have permitted this event if it had not conduced to
good. But if this be applied to particular bad men and parti-
cular wicked adlions, as if thefe very men and thofe evil adlions
were neceflary to the good order of the univerfe, and that the
whole would be lefs perfedl, and God lefs happy, if thofe parti-
cular perlbns had not exifted, and thofe anions had not been done,
this appears to me to be a falfe fuppofition, and diflionourable to
the Deity. It is indeed for the good of the univerfe, and the
glory of the divine adminiftration, that God hath made reafonable
creatures endued with liberty and free agency ; and that lie deal-
eth with them as fuch, and confequcntly permits them to ufc
their liberty even in doing evil adlions. But it does not follow,
that every particular adtion of theirs conduceth to good, and that
God permitteth it for that reafon. He may indeed in his infinite
vvifdom over-rule it to good, and bring good out of it; but in
its own nature vice and fin is evil, and of a pernicious tendency :
and . therefore a righteous and holy God hath a juft difpleafurc
againft it, and againft the perfons that commit it j and may, in an
cutuc confiftency with his governing wifdom, rightcoufncff, and
7 goodncfe^
-2©o The Stoical Dothine of forgiving Part II.
goodnefs, puiilfli them for it. And in liice manner a good and
virtuous man may and ought to conceive a jufl abhorrence of fych
evil adions, and may, without any imputation upon hi»- goodnefs,
be difpleafcd with tliofe that are guilty of them.
I acknowledge that tliere are many confiderations, feveral of
which are very properly urged both by Epidetus and Antoninus,
wliich fhould difpofe us not to be too rigorous in our cenfures
upon the adions of others, and to put the mofl favourable con-
ftrudion upon them, which the circumftances of the cafe can
poflibly admit. Eut it is certainly wrong, under pretence of engaging
men not to be angry at the faults of others, to endeavour to pal-
liate the evil and deformity of vice and fin, and to make fuch a re-
prefentation of it as if it were true, and, purfued to its genuine
confequences, would fliew that neither God nor man (hould be
angry at it, and puniifh it. This fcems to be the plain tendency
of fome of the paflages which have been produced from Marcus
Antoninus; though I am far from charging that excellent emperor
and philofopher with intending thofe confequences, and indeed
he has other paflages of a different ftrain. For though he ex-
prefly aflerts, as has been fliewn, that " the particular wickednefs
*' of any individual hurts not another, it hurts himfelf only ; and
" that no injury or evil adion can be hurtfu' to the whole ;" yet
he clfewhere fays, that " he who is guilty of an injury is guilty of
*' an impiety : for fince the nature of the whole has formed the
" rational animals for being ufeful to one another, he who tranf-
*' greffes this her will, is thus guilty of impiety againrt tl:c moft an-
" cient and venerable of the gods." By which he means what he
fo
Ch;ip. X. Itijuries confidered. 201
fo often calls the whole, and the nature of the whole. Here he
feems plainly to fuppofe, contrary to what he elfewhere teaches,
both that a man may hurt and do injury to another of the fame
fpecles with himfelf, and that in fo doing he is guilty of an im-
piety againrt: the whole. And he there adds, that " he who
" willingly lies is guilty of impiety, in as far as by deceiving he
*' does an injury ; and he who lies unwillingly, in as far as his
" voice dilfents from the nature of the whole ; which as he had
" obferved juft before is truth, and the firftcaufe of all truth."—-
He there alfo fays, " that he who purfues pleafure as good, and
" fliuns pain as evil, or who is not indifferently difpofed to pain
" and pleafure, life and death, glory and ignominy, all which the
" nature of the whole regards as indifferent, is plainly guilty of
" impiety (/)."
I have infilled the more largely on the Stoical dodrine of for-
giving injuries, and doing good to thofe that have ufed us ill, be-
caufe it is that part of their dodrine in which they have been
thought to come up to fome of the fublimeft precepts of morality
as taught by our Saviour. I readily acknowledge that an excellent
fpirit breathes in feveral of their precepts on this head. Eut it
appears from the obfervations which have been made, that by
placing that duty in fome refpcds on a wrong foundation, and en-
forcing it by motives which will not bear a ftridt fcrutiny, and car-
rying it in fome inftanccs to an extreme, they weaken what they
endeavour to eftablidi. All that is juft in this doiftrine is taught
(/) Anton. Medit. book. bt. kCi- i.
Vol. II. D d in
202 ^he Stoical DoBrine of forgiving Part II.
in the gofpcl, without running into extremes. The beft and pro-
pereft of the motives propofed by thefe philofophers are alfo there
urged to engage us to bear with one another's faults and infirmitieSj
and to forgive and do good to thofe that injure and offend us :
befides which there are additional motives propofed, which are of
the greateft weight. This duty is bound upon us by the exprefs
command and authority of God hinifelf, who hath alfo made our
fors:ivine other men their offences committed againft us, a necef-
DO O '
fary condition of our obtaining the forgivenefs of our own offences
from God. We are affured, that the unmerciful and unforgiving
fliall have no mercy fliewn them at the day of judgment (;«). But
efpecially the motives drawn from the wonderful love of God in
fending his Son to fufter and die for us whilft we were yet ene-
mies and ungodly, and the exceeding riches of his grace towards
penitent Tinners, together v/ith the perfedl example of a forgiving
difpofition in our mofl: amiable and benevolent Saviour, mufl:
needs, where they are heartily believed^ have a mighty force upon
an ingenuous mind. And yet at the fame time great care is taken
to keep up a deep fenfeof the evil of fin, and an abhorrence of it
in the minds of men, which is of the utmoft confcqucnce to the
caufe of virtue, and the good order of the moral world,
I fliall conclude this part of the fubjedl with obferving, that
'the benevolent dodtrine which hath been mentioned, feems not
to have been carried by any of the Stoic philofophers fo far as
•by Epiclctus and Marcus Antoninus; both of whom lived after
(;/;) James ii. 13.
this
CJiap. X. Injuries covjIJered. 203
this dodrine had received its utmofl improvement in the gofpel
of Jefus, and was exemplified in many of the primitive Chriilians,
who prayed for their enemies and . perfecutors with their dying
breath. The more ancient Stoics feem to have wrought up
their fcheme with greater rigor, and to have advanced maxims
not very confiftent with that liumane and forgiving difpofition fo
flrongly recommended by Marcus Antoninus. Mr. Stanley in his
excellent Hiftory of Philofophy gives it as part of the Stoical def-
cription of their wife man, or man of perfedl virtue, that " he is
" not merciful nor prone to pardon, remitting nothing of the pu-
" nifliments inflicfted by law, as knowing them to be proportioned
" to, not exceeding, the offence ; and that whofoever finneth,
" finneth out of his own wickednefs. A wife man therefore is
" not benign, for he who is benign mitigates the rigour of juftice,
" and conceives the puniflimcnts inflidted by law to be greater
" than they ought: but a wife man knoweth the law to be good,
*' or a right reafon, commanding vvhat is to be done, and what
" not («)" Stanley refers for the proof of this to Laertius and
Stobaeus, but does not point out to the particular pallagcs of thofc
authors, which therefore I fliall here mention. The reader may
confult Laert. lib. vii. fegm. 123. and Stobsus Eclog. Ethic, p. 78.
edit. Plant. To which may be added what Seneca fays concern-
ing it, de Clem. lib. 2. cap. 6 et 7, where he endeavours to ex-
plain and apologize for the Stoical doctrine on this head (0).
" Mercy,
(h) Stanley's Hift. Philofoph. p> 468. feconJ cJit. Lond.
(5) Mifcricordia vitium eft animorum nimis miferiic fiweniium : qiiam Tiquis a
fnpiuitc exigii, prope eft ut lamentationcm cxigat, & in alienis funeribus gcmitus-.
D d J At
504 ^^ Stoical DoStrine cf forgiving Part II.
" Mercy, fays he, is the vice or fault of fouls that are too favour-
" able to mifery, which if any one requircth of a wife man, he
" may alfo require of him lamentations and groans." — To fhew
that a wife man ought not to pardon he obferves, that " pardon
" is a remifTion of the penalty which is juflly due ; and that a
" man is faid to be pardoned, who ought to punifhed : but a wife
" man does nothing which he ought not to do, and omits no-
" thing which he ought to do : and therefore he does not remit
" the punirtiment which he ought to exadl. Yet he grants that
" which is the efFedl of pardon, but does it in a more honourable
" way. He fpares, counfcls, and corredls; he does the fame
" thing as if he did pardon, but does not pardon : becaufe he that
" pardons acknowledges that he hath omitted fomething which
" he ought to have done. — To pardon is not to punifli thofe
" things which you judge ought to be puniflied."
We have a remarkable inftance of the rigorous Stoical dipofition
in the famous Cato of Utica, who is cried up as a perfeft model
of Stoical virtue, and whoft' charader is fo exquifitely drawn by
the mafterly pen of Salluft : and one of the principal flrokcs in his
charadcr is this, that whereas Cscfar was admired for clemency
Atquare non ignofcat dicam : cofifiltminus nunc qiioqiie, quM fitvcnia, utfciamus
dari illain fapiente iwn debcie. Venia eft poenae meiitx reiuiiTio — ct ignofcilur
qui punai debiiil. Sapiens autetn nihil facit, quod non debet, nihil prxtei-
mittit quod debet. Itaquc pn?nam quam exigere debet, non donat. Scd illud
quod ex venia confequi vis, honeAloii libi via tribuit. — Parcit cnim fapicns, con-
fulit, 5c corrigit. Idem facit quod fi ignofceret, ncc ignofcit : quoiiiam qui ignof-
dt, fatctur aliquid fe qutnl fieri dcbuit omififfc — igiiofccie autaii eft, qux judicas
puokada iioa puniic.
7 aad
Chap. X. Injuries conjidered. 20j
and mercy, and his readinefs to pardon, Cato was revered for his
ftridl and inflexible feverity : " Severitas dignitatem addidcrat."
In Czefar was found a fare refuge to tlie wretched ; in Cato a cer-
tain vengeance to the guilty, " malis pernicies." Sal, de Bel.
Catalin. cap. Iv.
C PI A P,
20 J The Stoical Precepts 'with regard Part IT.
CHAP. XI.
The Stoical precepts with regard to felf-gCDermnetit covfidcrcd.
they talk in high Jl rains of regulating and fubduing the appetites
and pajjions ; and yet gave too great indulgence to tbeJleJJo'y con-
cupifcence, and had not a due regard to purity and chajlity.
Their doBrine of fuicide confidered. Some of the viojl eminent
'wife men atnong the Heathens, and many of our modern admirers
of natural religion faulty in this refpeSl. The faljliood and per-
nicious confequences cf this doBrine JJjeivn.
LET us next proceed to confider that part of the Stoical mo-
rals, which relates more immediately to ourfclves, and the
government of our appetites and paffions. And with regard to
this, nothing can make a more glorious appearance than the ge-
neral principles of the Stoics, which every-where breathe a con-
tempt both of pleafure and pain. They prefcribe the fubduing
and even the extinguifliing the appetites and paflions, and keeping
them under the moft perfedl fubjedlion to the laws of reafon and
virtue, and feem to aim at a greatnefs and dignity above the at-
tainments of human nature. Yet if we clofely examine their
fcheme in this refped, it will appear that it was in fcveral in-
flances defe<3:ive, at the fame time that in other inftanccs it was
carried to a degree of extravagance.
What has been already obfervcd concerning the other philo-
fophers, is equally true of the Stoics : that whatever they might
fay
Chap. XI. to Self-Government confidered, 207
fay in general concerning temperance and continence, and againfl
a love of fenfual pleafures, yet in particular inftances they gave
greater allowances to fleflily lufts and the fenfual appetite, than
were confident with the dignity of virtue and the rules of niodefty
and purity. Some hints of this were given befoic. That un-
natural and detefluble vice, which, as I have (liewn, was com-
monly charged upon the philofophers, was looked upon by the
principal of the antient Stoics, Zeno, Chryfippus, and Cleanthes,
to be an indifferent thing, as Sextus Empiricus informs us (/i).
And fome of the chief leaders of that fe6t afted as if they really
thought fo. Zeno, the founder of the Stoics, allowed himfelf
in that pradice, and feems not to have had any fcruplc about it.
Laertius indeed fays, that he did it feldom or fparingly, Tra/Za-
^io/,- 'r^oiiTo a-ccviv; (7). But Antigonus Caryfliu?, as cited by
Athenseus, reprefents it as a common practice with him. Yet he
was cried up as a man of exemplary virtue, and was remarkable
for his gravity, aufterity, patience, and temperance. Tlic Athe-
nians made a memorable decree in his favour, which may be fccn
in Laertius (r), in which they bear him tsftimony, that he had
for many years taught philofophy in their city, and had formed
the youth to virtue and fobriety, and had in his own life given
an example to all of the mod: excellent things: his praiflice was
agreeable to his dodlrine, and therefore they decreed him a golden
(/) Pyrrhon. Hypotyp. lib. iii. c.ip. 24.
if) Laert. lib. vii. fcgm. 18. See Men.ig. Obfeivat. in Lncrt. p. 273. edit.
Wetflen.
(/■) Laert. ubi fupra, fcgm. lo, 11.
J d3 T/;.' Sioics, notwithflamliug their high Pretences, Part II.
crown on the account of his virtue and temperance, and that a
ICDukhre fliould be built for him in the Coramicus, at the public
charge, and that the decree fliould be engraven upon two pillars.
One may ice by this, that the Heathens laid no great ftrefs on
challity and coirtincnce, and that a man might pafs for a very
good man among them, who was guilty of great vices and impu-
rities {s). From the inftance now mentioned, it is a natural in-
ference, that if thofe rigid teachers of morals pafTed fo wrong a
judgment in a cafe like this, in which the law of nature feems to
be very clear, this affords a plain proof that they were not to be
depended upon for found inftrudions in morality : and that if men
were left merely to interpret the law of nature as they themfelves
thought agreeable to reafon, without any other or higher guide,
thev might be apt to judge wrong in matters of great confequence.
That famous Stoic Chryfippus, as we arc told by Sextus Empi-
ricus (/), held, that carnal commerce of father and daughter, of
mother and fon, of brother and fifter, has nothing in it contrary
to reafon : for which he quotes Chryfippus's book De Republica.
Laertius gives the lame account, and quotes that book of Chry-
fippus for itj and fays, that he afferts it in others of his treatifes (?/).
(t) Cicero, in one of the beft of his works, joins Arlftippus with Socrates, and
reprefents tiicm both as excellent and extraordinary perfons of divine endowment?,
De Offic. lib. i. cap. 41. Whatever may be faid of Soctates, Ariftippus is kiwwn
to have allowed himfelf great liberties in all kinds of pleafures. In like manner
Epiftetus, as has been obferved before, gives the higheft encomiums to Diogenes,
and fcts him up as a pcrft<5l model of virtue.
(0 Pyrrhon. Hypotyp. ubi fupra.
{«) Laert. lib. vii. fcgm. 188. Concerning the obfccnity of Zcno and the
Stoics, fee Menag. ubi fupra, p. 277, 278.
The
Chap. XI. gan^e great Indulgence to the faifud 'PaJJwm. 200
The fame thing is afiirmed by Plutarch, who produces a pafI*a<Te
from a work of Chrylippus, which is full to this purpofc ; where
he argues from its being pradlifed by the brutes, that there is no-
thing in it abfurd or contrary to nature (.v). Lacrtius farther ac-
quaints us, that Chryfippus was cenfured for having, in his com-
mentary on the antient phyfiology, written obfcene things con-
cerning Jupiter and Juno, fuch as became proftitutes rather than
gods {y). It appears aUb from Laertlus, that Zeno, in his book
of the Commonwealth, a book much applauded, and Chryfippus,
in a book of the fmie title, held tlie community of women, and
that in this they followed Plato and Diogenes (s). It is not there-
fore to be wondered at, that, as Sextus Empiricus informs us in
a pafTage before cited, the Stoics thought it not abfurd or unrea-
fonable to cohabit with a harlot, nor to get a living by fuch prac-
tices. But it is but juflice to Epidletus and Antoninus to obferve,
that none of thefe maxims appear in their writings, Epidetus
compares adulterers to wafps, whom all men fliun, and endeavour
to beat down : and he advifes to abftain, as far as poffible, from
familiarity with women before marriage ; but he fpeaks of it in
very foft terms, and does not exprefly cenfure it as a fault, pro-
vided a man does it lawfully, i. e. by making ufe of proftitutes
allowed by the laws {a).
(.r) Plutarch, de Stoic. Repugn. Opcr. torn. II. p. 1044. F. 1045. A. ctllt.
Xyl. Francof. 1620.
(7) Laert. ubi fupra.
(z) Ibid. lib. vii. fegm. 131.
(a) Epift. Differt. book ii. chap. 4. et Enchirid. chap. 32. Mifi Carter's
tranflation.
Vol. II. Ee This
2 1 o 7he Stoics, notwithjlandlng their bigh Fretcncei, Part II.
This may fuffice to flicw, that the Stoics, notvvithftanding their
glorious pretences, were very loofe both in their notions and
pradices, with regard to that purity which is of lb great im-
portance to the good order and dignity of the rational nature -, and
in fevcral inftances laid afide that modefty which feems to be im-
planted in mankind as a fence againfl thofe exorbitant fleflily lufts>
which diflionour and defile the foul.
Another inftance, in which the Stoics feem to have allowed too
great indulgence to the fcnfual appetites, relates to the drinking to
excefs. Zeno himfelf is faid to have been a great drinker (b) :
and Chryfippus died of a furfeit of drinking fwect wine too freely
at a facrifice, to which he was invited by his fcholars {c). Cato
of Utica, who was thought to have arrived to the perfection of
virtue, appears to have been addidlcd to it. Plutarch fays, he
often fpent whole nights in drinking (^). Seneca, in his trail De
Tranquillitate Animi, cap. ult. recommends not only " libcralior
" potio," a drinking more freely than ordinary on fome oc-
cafions, but that " nonnunquam ad ebrietatem veniendum," we
mud: lometimes carry it even to drunkennefs : and he proceeds
to make an apology for it. He obferves, that Solon and Arcefilas
indulged themfelves in it. And he had faid before, that Cato
relaxed himfelf with wine, when he was fatigued with the
(h) Laert. lib. vii. fcgm. 26. See alfo Menaglus's Obferv.Ttioas on Lacrtius,
p. 276. edit. Wetften.
(r) Lacrt. lib. vii. fegm. 184.
(</) Sec Plutarcii, in the Life of Cato Minor.
7 circ
Chap. XI. gave great Indulgence to the fenfuaJ PtjJJions. 2 1 1
cares of the public; and he afterwards owns, that he was charged
with drunkennefs. " Catoni ebrictas objedla eft." But that it
would be cafier to prove that drunkennefs is a virtue, than that
Cato was guilty of a bafe or vicious thing. " At facilius efficiet,
" quifquis objccerit hoc crimen honeftum, quam turpem Cato-
" nem." The Stoics, held that the wife man might be inebriated,
but not overcome : his body might be difordered with wine, but
it could not hurt his mind. They maintained, as Mr. Upton,
cited by Mifs Carter, obferves, that their wife man was a perfedl
mafter of himfelf, when he was in a fever or in drink. And indeed
Epitfletus feems to reprefent it as the prerogative of a man arrived
at the perfedtion of wifdom, that he is unlhaken by error and de-
lufion, not only when awake, but when alleep, when warmed
with wine, when difeafed with the fplcen (c).
Another inflance of great importance, relating to the duty in-
cumbent upon us with regard toourfelves, and in which tlie Stoics
fell into a dangerous error, was their dodlrine of fuicide or felf-
murder. Others of the philofophers were faulty in this refpeft,
but it was in a particular manner the avowed doiftrine of the
Stoics. They aflerted, that in fome cafes it was not only lawful,
but a duty, for a wife man to difpatch himfelf This they call
ii'/r.'yA' Vlu.yx'')'-n; an exit agreeable to reafon ; when a man has a
jufl caufe of departing out of life. And Zeno the founder of
the Stoic fchool declares, that it is reafonable for a man to put an
end to his own life, not only for the fake of his friend, or of his
[r) DifTcrt. book ii. chap. 17. fcfV. 2.
E e 1 country,
2. 1 2 The Stoical DoBrine Part II.
country, but " if he be under an)' fevere p:iin or torment, or
" is maimed in his limbs, or labours under any incurable dlf-
" eafe." •a.o.v (v CKXriCorica, '^irvincci dXyiiSon-, w -ro-wpwaeo-ii', ri ro-
(7015 avi'lroii (/)•" Cato, who was a rigid Stoic, declares in Ci-
cero's third book de Finib. That it was the duty of the man,
whofe conveniencies in life exxeeded the inconveniencies, to con-
tinue in life : but where the inconveniencies he was under were
greater than the conveniencies, or he forefaw that it would be fo,
it was his duty to depart out of life. " In quo plura funt qua;
" fecundum naturam funt, hujus officium eft in vita manere : in
" quo autem funt plura contraria, aut fore videntur, hujus ofH-
" cium eft e vita excedere." And he exprefly affirms, that " it
" is often the duty of a wife man to depart out of this life, though
" he be moft happy, when it can be done opportunely: for this
" is to live agreeably to nature." " Srepe officium eft fapien-
" tis defcifcere a vita, cum fit beatiffimus; et id opportune
" facere poffit : quod eft convenienter naturae vivere {g)." It is
obfervable that Cato, who teaches this doctrine, lays tlie foun-
dation of his moral fyftem in this, that every animal has from its
birth a natural defire of preferving itfelf in its natural ftate, and an
averiion to its deftrudlion, and every thing that tends to it {h)." In
this he followed the principles of the chief mafters of the Stoic
feit. And fince tliey made the perfcdion of virtue to confift in
living agreeably to nature, how it could be confiftent with it for
(/) Laert. lib. vli. fcgm. 130.
(g) Cicero dc Finib. lib. iii. cap. 18,
(A) Ibid, cap, 5.
a man
Chap. XI. of Suicide confidered. 2 1 3
a man to deflroy himfelf, which they themfelves own to be con-
trary to nature, is hard to fee. Seneca in this, as well as other in-
ftances, is not always confirtent with himfelf, but he gives large
allowances to fuicide. Speaking of the wife man, he faith, that
" if he meets with many things th ^t are troublefome to him, and
" difturb his tranquillity, he difmifles himfelf out of life j and this
" he does, not merely in the laft neceflity, but as foon as ever for-
" tune begins to be fufpedled by him." " Si multa occurrunt
" molefta, 6c tianquillitatem turbantia, emittit fe : ncc hoc tan-
" turn in neceflitate ultima facit, fed cum primuni illi cceperit
" fufpeda effe fortuna (?')." And in his little tradl. Cur bonis Viris
mala fiant, the defign of which is to vindicate providence with
refpcdl to the evils which befal good men, he beflows the higheft
encomiums upon Cato's killing himfelf, and extols it as a moft
glorious adtion. And in the conclufion of that trad, he intro-
duces God as declaring to men, that he had opened a way for
them to efcape from their calamities; and had made nothing
eafier for them than to die, which was a fhort and ready way to
liberty. This feems to have been a fafhionable dodtrine, that
fpread much among the Romans, efpecially thofe of learning and
quality. The elder Pliny reprefents a timely or feafonable death
as one of the greateft benefits which nature hath conferred upon
mankind, and that the bcfl of it is, that it is what every man
may procure for himfelf (/i). And Pliny the younger mentions
it as a fign of a great foul to judge by reafon, and to deliberate
(/) Sen. Epift. 70. and he argues the fame thing more largely in liis 58th Epiftle.
{k) Hift. Natural, lib. xxviii. cap. i. in fine.
iipoa
314 The Stoical Dc^riue T •■t It.'
upon it, when it is proper to ftay in life, and when to go out
of it (/).
But what I would principally ubferve is, that Epidletus and An-
toninus, who feem to have carried the doftrine of morals to a
greater height than any of the other Stoics, plainly admit this doc-
trine. It is true that the former ofthefe excellent philofophers
has fome paflages, which, at firft view, have a different afpecfl.
*' My friends, faith he, wait for God, till he fliall give the fignal,
" and difmifsyou from this fervice; then return to him. For the
" prefent be content to remain in this port: where he has placed
" you — Stay. Depart not inconfiderately (w)." And again in
another place, where he lias fome noble rt:rains of refignation to
God, he faith ; " Is it thy pleafiire I fhould any longer continue
** in being ? I will continue free, of a generous fpirit, q si !■«?;,-,
" agreeably to thy pleafure. — But hart: thou no farther ufe for
" me ? Fare thou well ! I have ft;aid thus long for thy fake alone,
*' and no other; and now I depart in obedience to thee. — What-
" ever port: or rank thou flialt artign me, like Socrates, I will
" die a thoufand times rather than defert it. If tiiou flialt fend
" mc, where men cannot live conformably to nature, I do not
" depart from thence in difobedience to thy will j but as rccciv-
" ing my fignal of retreat from thee. I do not defert thee:
" heaven forbid ! but I perceive thou haft no ufe for me (//)."
(/) Plin. Epift. lib. J. cap. 22.
(m) Epi<n:. DifTert. book i. cliap. 9. fccft. 4.
(«) IbiJ. bookiii. chap. 24. kC:. j.
But
Chap. XL of Suicide confidered. aij
But if we compare thefe with other paffages of that author, we
fhall find, that after all this fhew of an entire refignation to tire
divine will, the fignal he profelles to wait for from God for his
departure, may be any great calamity which befals him : and of
this he himfelf is to be the judge. So that in efFedt he allows a
man to go out of life when he thinks fit, in order to free himfelf
from the preflure of fome grievous trouble. " Is the houfe in a
" fmoke ? faith he : if it be a moderate one I will flay j if a very
" grievous one, I will go out. For you muft always remember that
" the door is open." ^ t-Joct. moi->c"M (o). Again, " if fuftering
" be not worth your while, the door is open ; if it be, bear it (/>)."
And he gives it as a general rule, " Remember the principal
" thing, that the door is open. Do not be more fearful than
" children ; but as they, when the play does not pleafe them,
" fay, " / lo'ill plaj no longer •" fo do you, in the fame cafe, fay,
" I will play no longer ■" and go: but if you flay, do not com-
" plain ( j)." To the fame purpofe, fpeaking of the calamities of
life, fuch as the death of children, lofs of worldly fubftance, im-
prifonment, and the like, he faith, " Jupiter hath made thefe
" things to be no evils; and he hath opened you the door, when-
" ever they do not fuit you. Go out man, and do not com-
" plain (r)." I fliall only add one pafTage more from Epic-
tetus ; " Hanging is not unfupportable : for, as foon as a maa
(c) Epi(net. Diflert. book i. chap. 25. fe<fl. 2.
(^) Ibid, book ii. chap. i. fefl. 3.
{7) Ibid, book i. chap. 24. fciH:. 4.
(r) Ibid, book iii. ch;ip. 8. fci5l. 2. See alfo JiQokiv. cliap, i , fed. 12.
" has
2ii> 7he Stoical DoSfrine Part II.
" has learned that it is reafonable, «o'Ac>3I', he goes and hangs
" himfelf(i)."
The emperor Marcus Antoninus was in this, as well as mod
other points, of the fame fentiments with Epidletus. Speaking of
the things which a man ought to confider, one is, that " he
" fliould judge well this very point, whether he fliould depart out
" of life, or not {t)." Where he fuppofes, that it dependeth upon
a man's own determination to depart out of life, when he him-
fclf judges it reafonable to do fo. And he elfewhcre allows a
man, if he be hindered from living in that way that he would
chufe, " to go out of life," tots. y.x\ rd ^w e|(&(. And he adds,
" If my houfe be fmoky, I go out of it : and why is this looked
" upon as a great matter (u) ?" He elfewhere puts the fuppofition
of a man's being grieved, becaufe he is hindered by a fuperior
force from accomplilhing fome good dclign, without which life
is not worth retaining : and he advifes him in that cafe to quit
life with the fame ferenity as if he had accompliflied it ; uti^i iv
tx. TH ^fli/ iou.ivui } " go therefore out of life well pleafed (*')•"
And in another paffage to the fame purpofe, he feems to allow
men, if they cannot attain to that conftancy and magnanimity
which they afpire after, " to depart out of life altogether, yet not
" angry, but with limplicity, liberty, and modeft, having at lealt
{s) Epicl. DifTcrt. book i. chap. 2. k€l. i,
it) Anton. Medit. book iii. ftft. i.
{u) Ibid, book v. fc(f>. 29.
(.v) Ibid. book. viii. fcft. 47.
J ■ *' performed
Chap. XI. tif Suicide conjidered. 21-
" performed this one thing well in life, that they have in this
•' manner departed out of it (>•)." And again he fays, " who
*' hinders you to be good and fingle-hearted ? Only do you deter-
" mine to live no longer, if you are not to be fuch a man. For
" realbn in that cafe requires you lliould (z)." Gataker in his
annotations on the Meditations of Antoninus, of whom he was a
great admirer, paflcs a juft cenfure on this dodlrinc of the Stoics,
as little agreeable to piety. " Dogma pietati parum confenta-
" neum." And I widi fome notice had been taken of it in the
ingenious and learned notes on the Glafgow tranflation of Anto-
ninus, an.l which fcem to have been defigned to fet the fentiments
of that great emperor and philofopher in a proper light.
Agreeable to this dodrlne of the Stoics was the pradlice of fome
of the chief leaders, and greateft men of that fe£l. Zeno, as Dio-
genes Lacrtius informs us, when he was very old, fell as he was
going out of his fchool, and broke his finger, which being very
painful to him, he ftrangled himfelf (a). Or, as Lucian has it,
voluntarily put an end to his life by abftaining from all food {b).
Cleanthes did the lame on account of a painful diforder in his
gums (c). What Cato did is well known : and Plutarch fays,
{y) Anton. Medit. book x. foifl. 8.
(<■) Ibid. fe<fl:. 32.
(<i) Laert. Lb. vii. fegm. 28.
(i) Lucian. in Macrob. Opcr. torn. II. p. 473-
(t) Lacrt. lib. vii. el Lucian ubi fupra.
Vol II. F f that
iiS 7he Stoiail Do&ruie Part II.
thiit the laws enafted by the Stoa, luul induced many wife men
to kill themlclves, that they may be more happy {d).
Here is a remarkable inftance of the deficiency of, the Stoic
morality in a capital point of great importance. What rendered
this dod^rinc peculiarly wrong and abfurd in the Stoics was, that
they held virtue to be perfc(!lly fufficient to its own happinefs :
that the wife man is happy in the higheft degree under the greateft
outward calamities and fufferings : and that bodily pains and dif-
eafes, poverty, reproach, 6cc. which the world calls evils, arc
really no evils at all : and yet they taught, that a wife man may,
and fomctimcs ought to put an end to his own life, to deliver
himfclf from theni: i. e. to put an end to a life which is perfedlly
happy, in order to free himfelf fron> things, which, according to
them, ai'e no evils, and cannot in the leaft: diflurb or diminfli his
happinefs. Plutarch ex'pofes them on this head with a great deal
of juftice and fmartnefs. Epicurus, who had his wife man as
well as the Stoics, agreed with them in opinion, that it was pro-
per for a man to put an end to his own life when he judged it
reafonablc to do fo, or when the pains and miferies of life be-
came infiipportable [e). And in this he was more confiftent with
himfelf than the Stoics j fincc he looked upon pain to be the
greateft evil, and tlierefore might have rccourfe to death to get rid
of it : though, as he moft unaccountably pretended to the fecret
(d) Plut. de commun. notit. adverf. Stoic. Oper. torn. 11. f. 1063. C.
(<■) Cic. de Finib. lib. i. cap. 15.
7 cif
Chap. XI. of Suicide €07ifidered. ziip
of being compleatly happy under the feverell pains and torments,
he ought not, one fliould think, to have advifed any man by
putting an end to this prefent Ufe, to put an end to his happinels,
fiiice he had no other hfe in view. The Indian Gymnoibphifts
a*5led in this matter upon nobler principles, though they were
much miftaken in the application of them. Remarkable is the
account Porphyr)' gives of them in his fourth book de Abftinentia.
After having honoured them with the higheft encomiums, that
they were famous and juft perfons, and ^gco-o^;< divinely wife, he
tells us, that " they endure the term of life with reluftance, as u
" necelfary miniftry to nature, and haften to get their fouls at li-
" berty from their bodies j and when they appear to be in healtli,
" and have no evil upon them to urge them to it, they freely de-
" part out of this life, telling others before-hand of their inten-
" tion, who far from hindering them acconnt them happy, and
" give them commilTions to their deceafed friend?. After which
" they give up their bodies to the fire, that the foul may be fe-
" parated as pure as poflible from the body, and thus linging
" hymns they expire (/)." This is certainly a great abufe of a
noble principle, the belief of an immortal happincfs in a future
(late : and it lliews iiow apt the bed and wifefl: among the Hea-
thens were to fiill into great miftakes in very important points of
morality; iince they who were looked upon as having arrived at
an extraordinary degree of wifdom, purity, and virtue, really com-
mitted klf-murdcr, under the notion of an emincn.t and heroic
{f\ Porpliyr. dc Abftin. lib. iv.
F f 2 • aa
2 20 The Stoical DoSiriiif Part IL
aft of piety [g). How greatly therefore fhould it recommend Wie
fcheme of religion laid down in the holy Scriptures, which at
the fame time that it raifeth good men to the moft: lively hopes of
a bleilcd immortality, and animates them to a patient and chearful
enduring the greateft fufferings and torments, and even death it-
felf, when called to it in a juft caufe, and for the defence of truth
and righteoufnefs, forbids us to put a voluntary end to our own
lives ! In this as well as other inftances it furniflieth us with the
moft exalted idea of true piety and virtue without running into
any unwarrantable extremes.
It is true, that there were fume great philofophers among the
Pao'ans who did not approve fuicide. Seneca, even where he
{g) Many authors have taken notice of the f.imous Indian philofophcr Calaniis,
who voluntarily burned himfelf before Alexander the Great. And the fame cu-
floms continue among many of the Pagan Indians to this day. We are told con-
cerning the difciples of Fo in China, that many of them having a difrelifh for the
prcfent ftate of e.\ifbencc, feek the means of procuring a better as foon as poffiblc,
by putting an end to their own lives *. The Bramins erteem thole to be licroic
and puiified fouls who contemn life and die gcneroufly, cither by cafling thcm-
falves from a precipice, or leaping into a kindled pile, or tlirowing themfelvcs
under the holy chariot-whe-els, to be cruflied to dea;li, when the Pngods arc carried
about in procelTion through the town f. And it is related of the ancient inhabi-
tants of the Canary Iflands, who worlhipped the fun and flars, that on folemn ftf-
tlvals kept in honour of the deity they adored, In a temple fcated on the brink of
a mountain, they tlirew themfelvcs down into a vaft depth, out of a religious prin-
ciple, dancing and fmgiiig, their priefts affuring them that they fliould enjoy all
forts of pleafures after fuch a noble death |.
• Set a tnft of a Chincfephllofnpher in Du Halde's Hiflory cf Chini, vo!. III. p. i?I. Enflifli trantlihjn.
t Xa»ici's Life, b) F. Bougl,. u^i, cited by MiUai in tiii Hiftuiy of the PropJgJiion gf Chiiftianity,
XiL li. p. 13^- X Miliar, ibid. f. 132.
argues
Chap. XL of Suicide confidered, 221
argues in favour of it, acknowledges that there were fome among
thofe that profefled wifdom, who denied that any violence was
to be offered by men to their own lives ; and affirmed that it was
a wicked thing for any man to be the murderer of himfclf. " la-r
" venies etiam profeflbs fapientiam, qui vim offerendam vitaj fua;
" negant, & nefas judicant ipfum interemptorem fui fieri (A)."
Pythagoras taught that a man was placed in a certain watch or
poft, which it was his duty not to dcfcrt without the orders of
the great commander, that is God. " Vctat Pythagoras," fays
Cicero, " injufiu imperatoris, id eft Dei, de prjElidio et ftatione
" vitx decedere (/)." This was alfo the dodrine of Socrates and
Plato, as appears from his Pha?do. Socrates there obfcrves, that
the gods take care of us, and that we may be regarded as their
pofleffion and property ; and that as any man would take it ill, if
any of his flaves fhould difpatch himfelf that he might efcape his
fervice, it is reafonable to fuppofe in like manner that no man
ought to depart out of life, till God has laid a neceffity upon him
to do fo } as he did then upon Socrates. And he there alfo repre-
fents it, as what was taught in the aVo'p^rra or myfteries, that we
are here in a kind of prifon or cuftody ; and that no man ought to
break out of it, or run away without a lawful difcharge {k')y And
indeed it is not to be wondered at that this dotflrine was taught
in the myfteries, confidcring that they were under the diref^ion
of the civil magiftrate, and that fuicide is pernicious to fociety.
(A) Sen. cpift. 70.
(/■) Cic. Cato Major, cap. 20.
{k\ Plato Opera, p. 377. D. edit.LugJ. 1590-
And
2 21 T^bc Stoical DoSliine Part II.
And accordingly Virgil, in his fixth i'Eneid, which, as a cele-
brated writer has fliewn, was probably formed upon tlie plan of
the myftcric?, reprefents thofe that offered violence to their own
lives, as in an unhappy condition in the fubterraneous regions.
" Proxima deinde tenent mcefli loca, qui fibi lethuni
*' Infontes peperere manu, vitamque perofi
" Proieccre animas. Qiuiin vellent asthere in alto
" Nunc et pauperiem, et dnros pcrfcrre labores !"
ilineid. VI. ver. 434, See.
The Attic laws appointed, that the hand of the felf-murderer
fliould be cut off, and that it fhould be buried apart (/). Among
the Thebans, tjiofe who had killed themfclves were burned with
infamy (w). The Roman civil laws ordered, that thofe *' qui mala
*' confcientia fibi manus intulerant," fliould not be lamented by
their relations, and that their wills fliould not be valid. And yet
they gave too much allowance to fuicide : for, as Ulpian has it,
*' Quod fi quis t^dio vita^ vel valetudinis adverf^ impatientia et
" jadatione, ut quidam philofophi, mortem fibi confciverunt, in
*' ea caufa funt, ut eorum teftamenta valeant («)." So that if
they killed themfelves through wearinefs of life, or from impa-
tience under ficknefs, or from a principle of vain-glory, as fome
philofophers did, they were to be excufed from the penalty. To
(/) Sam. Petit. iQ Leg. Attic, lib. vii. lit. i. p. 522.
(«/) Zenobius ex Ariftot. apud S. Petit. ibiJ.
(«) Ulpian in Leg. \l. De injufto, riipto, irrito f.K^O Teftamcnto, ct Paulus
Juiifconfultus in Lege 45. Dc Jure Fifti.
which
Chap. XI. of Suivide confidered. J23
which the famous lawyer Paulus adds as a reafon for lliicide, the
Uiame of being in debt, " pudorem asris alien!." That great
magillrate and philolbpiier Cicero feems to be not cjuite confiftent
with himfelf in what he delivereth upon this fubjcdl. In the
palfage cited above from liisCato Major, he approves the opinion
of Pythagoras. But flill more clearly in his dream of Scipio,
where he makes Paulus tell Scipio, " Exxept God fliall free thee
" from the bonds of this body, there can be no entrance for thee
*' into this place," i. e. into heaven. And he adds, " Tiiat there-
" fore it was his duty, and that of all pious perfons, to endeavour
" to keep the foul in the body as in cuftody, and not to depart out
" of this life without his orders who gave us our fouls, left we
" fliould feem to have quitted the work and oftice which God
" hath affigned us (c)." To the (ame purpofe, in the firft book
" of his Tufculan Difputations, Cicero fays, that God forbids us
to depart hence, and to defcrt our ftation, except lie commands
us to do fo: but then he adds, that '* when God himfelf gives a
" juft caufe of departure, tlien a wife man may go joyfully out of
" his prifon, as if difmiffed by law and the orders of the ma^^i-
" ftrate." And this he fuppofes to be there the cafe of Cato.
This is to give a licence to fuicide in feveral cafes, and leaves it
to men themfelves to interpret the circumftances they are in as an
cxprefs order from God to deftroy' themfelves j which may be of
(5) " Nifi Deiis iftis te corpoi'is vinculis libcraveric, hue tibi ailitus patere nora
" poteft — Quare et tibi et piis omnibus letinendus eft animus in cuftodid corporis :
" nee inju/Tu ejus, a quo illc eft nobis datus, ex hominuin vita migrandum eft, ne
" munus humanum affignatum a Deo defugifle vijeamur." In Som. Scip. cap. 3.
Cicer. Oper. Gioaov. p. 1408. Lugd. Bit.
pernicious
214- n:^e Stoical Do^rine P:r': II.
pernicious confequence (/). In his Oftices, f^vaking of mc s
adiiig fuitably to their diftcrent characters, their ilain.ns, and ;^'>
niufcs, he fays, that in conftquence of this, one man may bo oblifjcd
to make away with himfcH", whiWl another, thcvi^^h Hke him in
other circumftances, may be obliged to ti.c contrary. Aiid he
vindicates Cato's kilHng himfelf, as what was fuited to his tlia-
radlcr, aiid that it became liim rather to die, than to fee the
face of the tyrant [q). And in the fifth b ok of his Tufcu'an
Difputations, having fpoken of death as a fafe harbour and refuge
from all calamities, he declares, that in his opiiiion " that law
" ought to be obferved in life, which obtained among the Greeks
" in their banquets, either let a man drink, or go off and quit
*' the company. — So (fays he) wloen you cannot bear the injuries
" of fortune, you may by fleeing fiom them leave them behind
" you." — " Mihi quidem in vitd fervanda videtur ilia lex qua; in
" Graecorum conviviis obtinet, aut bibat, aut abeat.— Sic injuiias
*' fortuna?, quas ferre nequeas, defugicndo relinquas (r)." I fliall
only add one palTage more. It is in one of his eplflles, where,
writing to his friend Papirius Patus, he Iccms to plead for it, as
in fome cafes not only lawful but commendable, and praifcs
Cato's killing himfelf as a glorious action. " Cetcri quidem,
" Pompeius, Lentulus tuus, Scipio, Afranius, focde perierunt :
" at Cato pra:clarc. Jam illuc quidem fi volumus licebit {s)."
(/) Tufcul. Difput. lib. i. cap. 30.
(7) De OfTic. lib. i. c.ip. 3 f .
{)■) Tufcul. Difput. lib. V. c.ip. ^0, 4I1.
(/) Epift. lib. ix. epiff. 18.
This
Chap. XI. of Suicide confidcrcd. 22 j
This is a remarkable inftancc of the uncertainty the ablell of the
Heathen phllofophers were under in matters of very great confc-
quence : and that even where they had a notion of what was agree-
able to right, tliey were ever varying for want of more certain guid-
ance on which they might entirely depend (/).
The fame uncertainty appears in feveral of the moderns, who
profefs to be governed by the law of reafon and natural religion.
Some of them have pleaded for the lawfulnefs of fuicide. The
noted author of the Oracles of Reafon, Mr. Blount, pradlifed it
on himftlf : and this pracflice was juflified in the preface of that
book : though the writer of that preface, Mr. Gildon, afterwards
faw his error, and retradted it in a book he publiflied againft the
deifts, intituled. The Deifls Manual. Some foreign writers have
gone the fame way. Among the Lettres Perfanes, there is one
which is particularly defigned to apologize for fuicide. Tliis is
alfo the intention of a trait publiflied in France not long ago, in-
tituled, Queftion Royale. And in a periodical paper lately pub-
liflied at Paris, Le Confervateur, an attempt is made to fliew that
fuicide is not contrary to reafon, though it is acknowledged to be
contrary to religion. The arguments in thefe and fome other
treatifes of the like kind are judicioufly anfwered, and the cafe of
{t) The Platonifts thimfelves were not qxiite agreed with relation to the do(flrine
of fuicide. There are fome palfages of Plotinus, which feem to allow a good man
in fome cafes to put an end to his own life. And even Plato fometimes exprefles
himftlf in a manner that looks that way. Ficinus, who was well accjuainted with
the writings of both thofe phllofophers, and was ftrongly prejudiced In their fa-
vour, leaves it undetermined what were their fentimeiits In this matter. Fitin. in
Plotin. p. 84.
Vol. II. G g fuicide
2 2^ The Stoical Doetrins Part II.
fuicide largely confidered, in the fecond tome of La Religion Ven-
gce, ou Refutation des Auteurs impies, from lettre lo to lettre l8.
a Paris i/^/.
I cannot quit this fubjed, which appears to me to be of great
importance, without obferving, tliat for a man voluntarily to put
an end to his own life, is an adl of impiety againft God, the author
of life, and who alone hath an abfolute dominion over us. It is
not unfitly compared, as was before hinted, by fome celebrated
antients, to a foldier's dcferting his pofl and ftation, without the
leave of his commander or general. Nor can it be pretended, that
when we meet with great adverfities in life, it is a call from God to
quit it ; on the contrary, it is a call to the exercifc of patience, re-
fignation, and fortitude. The Author of our beings has fo con-
flituted our bodies, that as it is not in our power to continue in
life as long as we pleafe, fo neither docs it depend upon ourfelves
to put an end to it, except by an adl of violence to our nature,
which it is not lawful for us to commit. If that law of God which
commands us not to kill, obliges us not to take away the life of
another man by our own private will, without lawful authority,
much more does it oblige us not to murder ourielvcs when wc
think fit : fince the duty of preferving our own lives is more di-
redlly and immediately incumbent upon us than the preferving the
lives of others. And hence the right a man hath to kill another,
when it is neceflary to his own defence. Suicide is alfo contrary
to the duties a man owes to the fociety. It is a millakc to imagine
that any man is abfolutely " fui juris" at his own difpofal. He is
not only under the dominion of God the Supreme Lord, to whom
.5 lie
Chap. XI. of Suicide conjidered. aa«r
he is accountable, but as a member of fociety bears a relation to
his king, his country, his family, and is not at liberty to difpofe of
liis life as he himftlf pleafes. If this were the natural right of one
man, it would be fo of another : and fo every man would have a right
to put an end to his own life^ whenever he thinks proper, and of
this he himfelf is to be the judge. And if he has a right to kill
himfelf when any great evil befals him, or when he is under the
apprehenfion of it, why might he not have an equal right to kill
another who he apprehends has brought evil upon him, or who
he fears will do it? And what confufion this would produce in
fociety, I need not take pains to fliew. To all which it may be
added, that for a man to kill himfelf, becaufe he is under the
apprehenfion or preflure of fome grievous calamity, is, whatfo-
ever may be pretended to the contrary, inconfiftent with true for-
titude. It is an argument of a pufiUanimous foul, that takes un-
warrantable methods to flee from a calamity j whereas he ought
nobly and patiently to bear it, which is true magnanimity and
fortitude. The poet fays well : " It is an eafy thing to contemn
" life in adverfity : he adls a courageous part, who can bear to
" be miferable."
" Rebus in adverfis facile eft contemnere vitam :
" Fortiter ille facit, qui mifer efle poteft."
Upon the whole, the pradlice we have been confidering, and
which was juftified, and in feveral cafes even prefcribed, by many
of the philofophcrs, efpecially by the Stoics, the moft eminent
teachers of morality among the antients, is a practice dcfervedly
rendered infamous by our laws, as being a murder committed by
G g 2 a man
, aj8 The Stoical DcBrine of Suicide conjldered. Part II.
a man upon his own perfon, in oppofition to the mod: facred obli-
gations of religion, and to the rights of the community to which
he belong?, and to the ftrongeft inftindts of the human nature,
wifely implanted in us by the Author of our beings, as a bar to
fuch inhuman pradtices.
The obfervations which have been made arc fufficient to fliew
that the Stoics are not to be abfolutely depended upon in matters of
morality. This will further appear from a dillindt examination of
the main principles on which their moral fyflem is founded, and
on the account of which they have been thought to be the mofl
ftrenuous advocates for the caufe of virtue, and to have carried
their notion of it to the nobleft height.
CHAP.
Chap. Xir. Stoics profejed to lead Men to HappinefSy &c.
^2f
CHAP. XII.
TJje Stoics profejfed to lead men to perfeSi happinefs in this prefent
life^ abflradling from all conjideration of a future flat e. Their
fcheme of the abfolute fiificieiicy of virtue to happinefs, and the
indifferency of all external things confidered. They were fome-
times obliged to make concejfons which were not very confjlent
with their fyflem. Their philofophy in its rigour not reducible
to pra^ice, and had little infuence either on the people or on
themfihcs. They did not give a clear idea of the nature of that
virtue which they fo highly extolled. The loofe doSlrine of many
of the Stoics, as well as other phi lojophers, with regard to truth
and lyifig.
TH E profefled defign of tlie whole Stoical fcheme of mora-
lity was to raife men to a flate of complete felicity. This,
indeed, was what all the philofophers pretended to j and Cicero
reprefents this as the principal thing which induced men to fpend
fo much time and pains in the fludy of it (u). But none of them
made fuch glorious pretences this way as the Stoics, nor fpoke of
virtue in fuch high terms as they did. They maintained, that
virtue alone, without any outward advantages, is fufficient to a
life of perfedl happinefs even in this prefent ftate. And to fupport
this fcheme, they aflerted that all outward things are indifferent,
and nothing at all to us : iSiv t>fli rt^ui. Indifferent things, rai
{u) Cic. de Fioib. lib. Hi. cap. 3. Et Tufcul. Difput. lib. v. cap. i.
230 Stoical Scheme of the Indifferency of all Externals, Part IT.
dhatpopcc, as Laertius reprefents the fenfc of the Stoics (x), neither
profit nor hurt us j of this kind arc life, health, pleafure, beauty,
ftrength, riches, honour, nobility; and their contraries, fuch as
death, ficknefs, pain, deformity, poverty, diflionour, &c. And
again, that thofe things are indifferent, which are neither good nor
evil, neither to be defired nor fliunned, conducing neither to hap-
plnefs nor unhappinefs. In this fcnfe, all things are indifferent
which are between virtue and vice. No philofopher ever carried
the Stoic notion in this matter farther than Epiftetus. It is a
principle which runs through his whole fyfl:ein, and mofl of his
magnificent precepts are built upon it, that nothing is good or
evil, but what is in the power of our own wills : that none of
the things without us are either profitable or hurtful : that neither
life nor death, health nor ficknefs, bodily pain nor pleafure,
neither affluence nor poverty, honour or ignominy, neither the
having wife, children, friends, pofTefTions, nor the want or lofs
of them, are to be the objecls of our defires or averfions, they are
nothing to us, nor of the leafl moment to our happinefs.
Agreeable to this is the idea the Stoics give of him whom they
call a wife man : that he has all his goods within himfelf, wants
nothing, never fails of obtaining what he defires, is never fubjed
to any difappointment ; becaufe he never has a defire or averfion
to any thing but what is in his own power ; nor can any outv/ard
calamity touch him, whether of a public or private nature. And
what is efpecially to be obferved, they affert, that he is pcrfedly
(.v) Lacrt. lib. vii. fcgm. 105, 106.
happy
Chap. XII. and th ahfolute Sufficieney of Virtue to Happlnefs. 231
happy even in the extremity of torments and fufferings. This is
the principle upon \vhich they chiefly valued themfelves, and were
admired by others. Cicero reprefents their opinion thus, concern-
ing the wife or virtuous man : '' That fuppofe him to be blind,
' infirm, labouring under the moft grievous diflempcr, banifhed
' from his country, bereaved of his children or friends, in in-
' digence, tortured upon the rack, he is in that inftant, and in
' thofe circumflances, not only happy, but happy in the higheft
' degree (j)." And this happinefs they fuppofed to be wholly
in a man's own power, and entirely owing to virtue itfelf : that it
is fufficient merely by its own intrinfic force and excellence to pro-
duce and fecure an independent felicity, without any foreign fup-
port, and abftrading from all confideration of a future flate or
recompence. This was in reality making an idol of their own
virtue, and erecting it into a kind of divinity. And accordingly
their fcheme, as was before obferved, fometimes betrayed them
into a way of talking which bordered upon profanenefs j as if
their wife man was equal in virtue and happinefs with God him-
felf. The Peripatetics agreed with the Stoics in affirming, that
virtue is the greatefl good, and that a wife and good man is happy
under the fevereft bodily torments. But they would not allow,
that in that cafe he was moft happy, or happy in the higheft de-
gree. Thus it is that Cicero reprefents their fenfe, in the fifth
book of his Tufculan Difputations, where he argues pretty largely
againft thofe who fuppofed that a wife and good man is '• happy"
(^) " Sit idem [fapicns] cxcus, debilis, morbo gravifTiiTK) adfeftus, cxful,
" orbus, egens, torqueatur eculco : quern hunc adpcllat Zeno ? Beatum, inquit,
" ctiam beatiffimum." Dc Fiaib. lib. v. cap. 28. p. 427. edit. Davis.
in
2 3 i Stoical Scheme of the Indifferency of all Externals, Part II.
in fuch circumftanccs, but not " moft happy ;" " beatum cfle, at
" non beatiflimum (z)." He thinks, that he who wants any
thing that is requifite to an happy Ufe, cannot with any propriety
be faid to be happy at all : " Si eft quod defit, ne beatus quidem
" eft :" that happincfs includes the full pofleflion and enjoynient
of all good things, without any evil joined to it or mixed with
it : and that if any thing relating to the body or outward circuni-
ftances were good, a wife man could never be fure of being happy,
becaufe thefe outward things are not in his own power (a). In
this the Stoics feem to have had the advantage of the Peripatetics.
Tiiey both agreed that wife and good men are happy in this pre-
fent ftate : for in their difquifitions on this fubjeft, a future ftate
of happinefs was never brought into the account. They alfo
agreed, that this happinefs was in every wife and good man's own
power. But the Stoics plainly faw, that it was not in any man's
power to obtain external advantages when he pleafed, or to attain
to a perfe(fl freedom from all outward pains and troubles. And
therefore they would not allow that external things are either
good or evil, or have the leaft concernment with the happinefs of
human life. This, though contrary to nature and experience,
yet was a confiftent fcheme, which that of the Peripatetics was
not. Cato, in arguing againft the Peripatetics, urges, that if
they allowed pain to be an evil, it would follow that a wife man
could not be happy when tortured upon the rack : whereas, ac-
cording to thofe who denied pain to be an evil, a wife man kept
(s) Sec particuhrly Tufcul. Dlfput. cap. 8. et cap. 14. et fcq.
(4) Ibid. cap. 10. p. 365. edit. Davis.
the
Chap. XII. ahd the abjolutc Sufficiency cf Virtue to ILif-pinrfs. 233
the happinefs of his life unviolitcJ in the fcvcrtfl torments {b).
He here tal;es it for grf.ntcd on ail fides, that a wife man is happy
on the rack, and treats it as an abfurdity to fuppofc the contrary.
And indeed, this feenis tc have been a principle common to all the
philofophers, and it was looked upon as fliamcful to deny it.
Hence it was, that Epicurus himfelf, that he might not come
behind them in a gloriou? way of talking, though in his fyftem
pain was the greatefl evil, aflcrted that a wife mnn would be
perfeilly happy in Phalaris's bull. Theophraftus, indeed, one of
the moft eminent of the Peripatetic philofophers, was fenfible of
the abfurdity of this. He thought, as Cicero informs us, that
" great external calamities, pains and torments, were abfolutely
" incompatible with a happy life : and that it was a contradicftion
'' to fuppofe, that the fame man could be happy, and opprefTcd
" with many evils." Yet, as Cicero intiiiiates, he durfl: not fpeak
his mind clearly, and was blamed by all the other philofophers,
for feeming to fuppofe, though he did not direftly affirm, that a
wife man could not be happy on the rack, or under the fevcreft
torments (c). What led the philofophers in general into this
way of talking, was with a view to extol the high advantages of
their philofophy as the only infillible way to make men com-
pletely happy, and raife them above all outward evils. This is
(3) " An verb certius quicquam poteft efTe quam illorum ratione qui dolorem In
" malis poniint, non pofH; fapientcin beatum tire cum eculeo torqueatur ? Eoriim
" BUtem, qui dolorem in malis non habent, ratio certe cogit, uti in omnibus tor-
" mentis confervatur vita bcata fapicntis." Apud Cic. de Finib. lib. iii. cap. 13,
p. 236. edit. Davis,
(f) De Finib. lib. v. cap. 26. p. 261. Et Tufcul. Difput. lib. v. C^P- 9-
p. 361. edit. Davis.
Vol. II. Hh the
234 Virtue alone not ahfohifely fiifficicnt to Part II.
the account Cicero gives of what philofophy makes profeflion of,
thp.t " every man who obeys its dictates (hall be always armed
" againfi; the attacks of fortune, and fliall have in himfelf all the
" helps neceflary to a good and happy life : and finally, that he
" fliall be always happy {d)." Such were the glorious pretences
of the Pagan philofophy. Their whole fcheme was founded on
the fuppofition of attaining to the perfedlion of virtue and happi-
nefs in this prefent ftate : and this involved them in inextricable
difficulties, how to reconcile thofe high pretences with experience,
and the prefent appearances of things.
It is manifcfl, that the virtue of the bcft men is at prefent mixed
with weaknelTcs and defeds. Or, if it were never fo perfedt in it-
felf, it meets with many obftaclcs in a world full of vice and dif-
ordcr, and cannot exert itfelf as it would, nor produce the cfFedls
it is naturally fitted to produce, and which it would adtually pro-
duce in a better ftate of things. Many are the temptations and
fnares to which our virtue is here expofed, and which it requires
a conftant care and vigilance to guard againft, as well as to keep
all our appetites and pafllons under a pcrfedl fubjeftion to the law
of religion and reafon. And as we are united to others by many
focial ties, their calamities often by a tender fympathy become
our own ; and in fuch cafes and circumftances, even our virtue
and benevolence itfelf, except we caft off all human affe<f^ions.
(d) " N.nin quid piofitetnr [philofopliia] ? O dii boni ! p2L-fe(fluMm fe, qui Ic-
*' gibus fuis paruiliet, ut elTet contra foitiinam femper .irmatus, ct omnia prx-
" (Idia habcTct in fe bene beatfeque vivciiJi, ut cfltt femper Jtui^iuc ba-Uus."
Tnfcul. Difput. lib. v. cap. 7. p. 357.
7 will
Chap. XII. compkat Happinefs in this prejent State. 535
will be apt to produce uneafy feelings. To which may be added,
the many hindrances arifing from the body, its pains, weaknefles,
difeafes,' and languors J which by the prcfent conflitution of our
nature, cannot but greatly affedl our minds, and often have fuch
an influence, as to fill the whole foul with black and difmal ideas.
And this has frequently happened to virtuous and excellent perfons
under the power of an habitual prevailing mplancholy. Or, if
we put the cafe of a good man's being expofed to a feries of the
moft bitter perfecutions and fufferings for the caufe of truth and
righteoufnefs, to pretend that in thefe circumftances he is per-
fcdly happy by the mere force and fufficlency of his own virtue,
without any foreign alTiflances or any future hopes, is a vifionary
fcheme, contrary to reafon and nature. So far is it from being true,
that human virtue is of itfelf alone fufficient to render a man com-
pleatly happy in fuch circumftances, that it would not hold true,
if fuch a fuppofition could pollibly be admitted, even with rerpe<5l
to the divine nature. That God is perfcdly happy is a principle
acknowledged by all that believe a Deity. But who would ac-
count him perfedtly happy, though never io perfed: in moral ex-
cellence, if he were fubje<fl to pain or external violence, or to
thofe inconveniencies and fufferings to which good men are liable
in this prefent ftate, and which often by tlie allowance of the
Stoics themfelves, make it reafonablc for them to put an end to
their own lives? And indeed there cannot be a more manifeft
proof of the vanity of tiieir pretences than this, that they who
profefled fo abfolute a contempt of all external things, and de-
clared in their foicmn addreft'cs to God that they were able to
II h 2 bear
^35 Virtue alone not ahjoltiteJy fujiclent Co Part 11.
bear whatfoevcr he fliould fee fit to lay upon them, frequently re-
commend felf-murder as a remedy to free them from external ca-
lamities. " It is remarkable," fays Mifs Carter, " that no feet of
" philofophers ever fo dogmatically prefcribcd, or io frequently
" pradifed fuicide, as thofe very Stoics, who taught that the pains
*' and fuffjrings which they fought to avoid by this acl of rebel-
" lion againft the decrees of Providence, were no evils. How
" abfolutely this horrid pradlice contradid:ed all their noblefl prin-
" ciples of refignation and fubmiflion to the Divine Will, is too
" evident to need any enlargement (c)." Indeed this feems to
flicw that their affefted contempt of all outward things, was, for
the moft part, little more than a pompous ofteiUation of high-
founding words. Epicurus himfclf, as liath been already obferv-
ed, fpoke as magnificently of a wife man's being happy in the fc-
vereft torments, as the Stoics did. It is no hard matter to put
on an air of grandeur in the cxprefhons. But where there is no
profpedl of a future recompencs or happinefs, this magnanimity
has not afolid foundation to fupport it, or can only have an effcd:
on a very few minds of a particular conftitution.
The Stoics after all their high tafk of the abfolute IndifFerency
of all external things, found thcmfelves obliged to make fome
conceflions which were not very confiftent with the rigor of their
principles ; and which Involved them in feemlng contradiftions.
Plutarch takes great advantage of this for expofing them in his
two treatifes of the Contradicftions of the Stoic?, and of Ccmmon
(*) See Mifs Carter's introduiftioa to her tranflation of Epiiflctuf, ft^^t. 26.
Conception
Chap. XII. eomplcat Happviefs in this prefetjf Sf.tfc. 237
Conception agalnfl the Stoics. Cato in Cicero's third book de
Finib. after having laid it down as a principle, that that only is
good which is honeft, and that only is evil which is bafe ; " So-
" lum eflc bonuni quod honeftum eft, et id malum folum quod
" turpe ;" fets himfelf largely to fhew, that with regard to other
things, which the Stoics would not allow to be either good or
evil, or to contribute in the leaft to rer.der life happy or wretch-
ed, there is, notwithftanding, a real diiFercnce between them ;
fo that fome of them were asftimabilia, as he calls them, that is,
fit to have fome value put upon them, others the contrary ; and
he pofitively affirms, as what cannot be doubted, that of thofe
which they called middle or indifferent things, i. e. neither good
nor evil, fome are to be chofen or taken, others to be rejedlcd (Hz
and that fome of thefe things are fccundum naturam, according
to nature, others are contrary to nature. The fame account of
the Stoical dodlrine is given by Laertius [g). Cicero obferves in
his fiift book of laws, that what the Peripatetics, and thofe of the
Old Academy, called bona, good things, were called by the Stoics,
commoda, commodious or convenient things; what the former
called mala, evil things, the latter called incommoda, incommo-
dious or difagreeable : from which he concludes, that they changed
tlie names of things, v/hen the things themfelves continued the
fame (/j). And in his fourth book de Finib. he undertakes to
(/) " Non dobinm cf>, quia ex his quae media dicimus, fit aliuJ fumendum,
" aliud rejicicndum." Apud Cic. dc Finib. lib. iii. c.ip. i3. p. 254.
ig) Liicrt. lib. vii. fegm. 102.
(/•) Cic. dc Leg. lib. i. c.Tp. 13. ct c.ip. 21.
prove
238 fl'c Stoicks oblige dfome time i to make Concejfions Part II.
prove at large, tliat the Stoics and Peripatetics, if narrowly exa-
mined, differed more in the manner of exprefllon than i;i the
thing itfelf (/). But the fame great author feems to affcrt in his
Offices, that there was a real difference between them, and gives
the Stoical fyftem the preference to that of the Peripatetics [k).
If there was a real difference between the Stoics and Peripa-
tetics, it feems to have confifted principally in this, that though
the Peripatetics allov/ed, that virtue is the highefl: good, yet they
held that the commodities of life, which they called good things,
contributed in fome degree to human happinefs. But the Stoics
would not allow that thefe things were of the lead moment to
happinefs, and afferted that with refpedt to the happinefs of life,
all outward things were nothing, and of no concernment to us at
all. This indeed was neceffary to fupport their fyftem concerning
the abfolute felicity and independency of their wife and virtuous
man. But it is contrary to nature and experience (/). Nor can
I well conceive how the Stoics could allow, as they did, external
things to be commodious for us, or the contrary, if they had no
(;') See particularly dc FInlb. lib. iv. cap. 6. ct cap. 3. et 9.
(Ji) De Offic. lib. i. t.ip. 24. et lib. iii. cap. 4.
(/) Ariftotle's opinion, which was generally followed by the Peripatetics, w;rs,
that though virtue is the grcateft good, yet outward good things are ncccjrary 10
happinefs : for that nature is not fclf-fuflicicnt, the body muft bt in health, and
men muft have the nccefliu ies and convcniencies of life. See his Ethic. Jid Nicom.
lib. 10. cip. 9. oper. torn. II. p. 140. C. edit. Paris 1629. et Magn. Moral, lib.
2. cap. 8. ibid. p. 184. D. In this matter Pofidonius and Pancetius, two eminent
Stoics, quitted the dotflrincs of their kCt. They denied that virtue alone is AifTi-
cient for beatitude, and aflirmcd that it requires the aflillaacc of hc;Jth, flrcngtli,
and ncccfraries. Laert. lib. vii. fegtti. 128.
Influence
Chap. XII. not very conf/lent iviih their Frindples, 23P
influence at all to promote or to obftrudl human happinefs. Thefe
philofophers themfelves did not pretend to deny, that man is an
animal compounded of body and foul : and from thence it fol-
lows that that which is good or evil for the compound, may be
properly faid to be good or evil to man in his prefent ftate; Mar-
cus Antoninus ftys, that " pain is either an evil to the body,
" and then let the body pronounce it to be an evil, or to the foul :
" but the foul can jnaintain her own ferenity and calm ; and not
" conceive pain to be an evil (w;)," But if the body pronounces
pain to be an evil, the foul as united to the body feels and pro-
nounces it to be fo. Cato in explaining the dodlrine of the
Stoics, fays, " It is manifeft that we have a natural abhorrence
" of pain:" " Perfpicuum eft natuni nos a dolore abhorrere («)."
And how the Stoics could confiflently acknowledge this, and yet
not own it to be an evil, or affert that men may be perfedtly hap-
py under it, is hard to fee, Cicero obfcrves that tiie Stoics faid,
that " pain is fliarp, troublefome, odious, hard to be born, con-
" trary to nature," but would not call it evil : and he adds,
fpeaking to Cato, " you deny that any man can have true forti-
" tude, who looks upon pain to be an evil : but why fliould not
" that man have as much fortitude, as he that owns it to be
" grievous, and fcarce to be endured, as you yourfelf grant it is?
" For timidity arifes not from names, but from things {0)"
The
(w) Anton, lib. vni. fei5>. 28.
(.•1) Cicero tie Finib. L'b. iii. cap. 19. p. 257. edit. Davis.
(0) " Dicunt ilii [^Stolci] .ifperum cflb dolere, moleftum, odiofuin, contra na-
" iui.im, difficile tolcrafj. 'J"a autcm n.gns toricm cfTc quuKiuam pulle, qui
dulotem
240 The Stoical Scheme cj the ahfdutc Lidijcrcna Part II.
I'lic Stoical niaximo nuift be acknowledged to have an air of
grcatnefs j but they would have done more lervice to the caulc of
morals, if iiiftead of denying that their wife or virtuous man ever
fuftcrs any evil, or is liable to any difappointment, they had re-
prcfented it as one of the nobleft exercifes of virtue to bear evils
and difappointments with a becoming temper of mind. Anto-
ninus indeed argues, that " that which may equally befal a good
" man or a bad man, can be neither good nor evil (/<)." Accord-
ing to this way of reprefcnting it, no evil can befal a good man.
And this, if true, would at once remove the ohjedlon againfi;
Providence, drawn from the evils to which good men are ob-
noxious in this prefent ftate. But except mankind could be pcr-
fuaded out their natural feelings, fuch a way of arguing will be
of little force. It is ftill undeniably true, that good men are
often expofed to great fufferings and calamities which are very
grievous to nature, nor does the refufing to call them evil at all
alter their nature, or render them lefs grievous and trouhlefome.
The true remedy is not by denying them to be fo, but by offering
fuch confiderations as are proper to fupport the mind under
them, the moft powerful of which are drawn from the hope of
eternal happinefs in a future ftate. But this did not enter into the
Stoical fyftem.
" dolorem malum putat. Cur fortior /it, fi illud, quod tute concedis, afpcrum
" ct vix ferendum putabit ? Ex rebus cnim timiditas, non cx vocabulis fcquitur."
Cicero dc Finib. lib. iv. cap. 19. p. 321, 322.
(/) Anton. Mcdit. book iv. feft. 39.
The
Chap. XII. of all extei^nal Things fart her confuicreJ. z 4 1
The fame great emperor and philofopher fays, " whenever you
" imagine that any of thofe things, which are not in your own
*' power, arc good or evil to you, if you fall into fiK'h imagined
'* evils, or are difappointcd of fuch good, you muft neccflarily ac-
" cufe the gods, and hate thofe men who, you deem, were the
" caufes, or fufpedl will be the caufes of fuch misfortunes (y)."
He frequently exprefTes himfcif to this purpofe, and fo does Epic-
tetus. But it by no means follows, that if we look upon any of
tlie things which befal us to be evils, i. e. to be feverely trouble-
fome, painful, and grievous (for this is all that is really meant by
calling them evils, fince no man pretends that they are evil in the
moral fenfe) that therefore we muft neceffarily curfe or accufe
God and Providence : for we may upon folid grounds be perfuad-
ed, that God fends thofe evils upon us, or permits them to befal
us, for wife ends, and will in the iffuc over-rule them to our
greater benefit. And indeed, if we do not look upon them to be
evils, there is no proper exercife for patience and refignation, which
confifteth in bearing evils with equanimity and fortitude. Nor
does it follow, that if we regard thefe things as evils, we muft
neceffarily hate thofe men, whom we fuppofe to be the authors or
caufes of them. We may, and in many cafes cannot help look-
ing upon the injuries we fuffcr from others to be indeed evils and
injuries when we feel them to be fo, and yet we may in obedience
to the will of God, and from a prevailing goodnefsof heart, forgive
the authors of thofe injuries, and even render good for evil. This
is one of the moft eminent ads of virtue which is powerfully rc-
{q) Anton. Medit. bookvi. fcft. 41. Glafgow traunatioii.
Vol. II. I i commended
24- 7^^ Stoical Maxims in their Rigor Part IH
commended and' enforced in the Holy Scripttires. Whereas upon
their fcheme there is properly no fuch thing as forgiving iniiiries,
or doing good for evil, fince a good man cannot be hurt or in-
jured, nor fuffer any evil: or, if it were a real evil or injury that
he fufFered, he mufl: neceflarily, according to their wav of arguing,
curfe the man that did it, and aecufe Providence for permitting it.
Some of the Stoical principles were fo much out of the way of'
common fenfe and conception, that when they came into the
world, and engaged in public offices and affairs, they could not'
put in pradice their own maxims : but, as Plutarch obferves,-
they then fpoke and adled. as if they looked upon external things'
to be good or evil, and to be things v/hich are of concernment to*
the happinefs or unhappinefs of human life, he produces a paflage-
from Chryfippus, in which he fays, that a wife man will fo fpeak'
in public, and (o order the common-w^ealth, as if riches, and.
glory, and health were good things. And Plutarch very juftly
takes this to be in effe(ft a confefling that his dodlrine about the
abfolute indifferency of all external things was contrary to true
policy, and could not be reduced into pradtice (r). There ar&
feveral pafTages of Epidletus, by which it appears, that thofc
maxims of the Stoics, which make fo glorious an appearance in-
their books, had little influence upon the people, or even upon
thofe philofophers themfelves. " Shew me, fays he (i), that I
*' may fee what I have long fought, one who is truly noble and
(/■) Epiflet. DifTcrt. book ii. chap. 6. fefk. 2.
{s) Ibid. clmp. 19. ftfl. 3.
f ingenuous,
Chap.-XII. not reducible to PraSlicc-^^ 24,;
" ingenuous, fliew me cither a ycung or old man:" Tfic
nineteenth chapter of his fecond book is concerning thofe wiio
embraced pliilofphy only in word. He there fays ; " flicw me
" a Stoic, if you have one. — You can indeed fliew a thoufand that
" can repeat the Stoic reafonings. Shew me fome perfon, formed
" according to the principles which he profefles. Shew mc one
" who is fick and happy, in danger and happy, dying and happy,
" exiled and happy, difgraced and happy. Shew him me ; for, by
t" heaven, I long to fee a Stoic. Shew me one who is approaching
" towards this charadler: do me the favour: donotuefufean old
" man a fight which he hath never yet feen." Here he complains,
that he never yet faw a true Stoic, one that adled up to their
principles. But what he reprefents as impradicable, and no where
to be found, the feeing a man happy in ficknefs, danger, exile,
difgrace, and death, was adlually verified in many of the primitive
Chriftians. Not that they looked upon thefe things, in the Stoical
language, to be perfedlly indifferent, and no evils at all ; but be-
caufe they were perfuaded that tht fuffcrings of this prejent time
are not worthy to be compared "with the glory which jljall be revealed :
and that this light aJliSiion which is but for a moment worketh for
us a far more exceeding a?id eternal weight of glory. Rom. viii. 1 8.
2 Cor. iv. 17. Supported and animated by thefe glorious hopes,
and by the gracious afiillance of God's Holy Spirit, they gloried
even in tribulation : They were, as St. Paul expreiTeth it, asfor-
rowfuly ytt always rejoicing; troubled on every fide, yet not dif-
treffed ; perplexed^ but not in defpair ; as having nothing, yet pof
ffjing all things ; and performed things which would otherwife
I i 2 have
244 ^^^ "^^"^'^ ^''^ '^"^ S^''^'^ a clear Idea of the Part II.
have feemed impracticable. Tlie reader may confult the paflages
referred to at tlie bottom of the page, which arc admirable to
this purpofe it).
There is one farther obfervation which I would offer concern-
ing the Stoical dodtrine of morals, and that is, that after all the
high encomiums which they and others of the antient philofophers
beftowed upon virtue, and the glorious things they aicribed to it,
they did not give a clear idea of the nature of that virtue they fo
highly extolled. They laid it down as the foundation of their
moral fyltcm, that every animal has a defire to prefcrve itfelf
in its natural ftate : and that the chief good of man, and the pro-
per office of virtue, is to live agreeably and conformably to na-
ture ; " congruenter naturse convenienterque vivere," as Cato ex-
preifesit in the account he gives of the dodtrine of the Stoics («).
Laertius gives the fame account of their dodlrine, that the end of
man is to live agreeably to nature, o/xoAo>a/;AiVw5 t>i ^Jo-gi ^vi';'. This
principle that virtue and happinefs confifls in living according to
nature was common to moft of the philofophers. But as they
differed in their accounts of nature and what was agreeable to it,
fo they differed in the idea they formed of virtue. The Epicu-
reans, as well as the Stoics, placed virtue and happinefs in living
conformably to nature. But as they fuppofed the defire of plea-
fure to be the firfl principle of nature in men and all animals,
(/) SceMatt. V. ii, 12. Arts v. 40, 41. xvi. 25. Rom. v. 3, 4, 5. viii. 17,
35' 3^'. ?7. 38. 39* 2Cor. iv. 7. 17. 2 Tim. iv. 6, 7, 8. Ikb- -\- 34.
(i/) ApuJ. Cic. (Je Finib. lib. iii. c.ip. 5, 6, ct 7.
• 2 they
Chap. XII. Nature of that Virtue tbeyfo highly extol. 14.5
they made every thing elie fubordlnate to it ; and this was the
central point of their moral fyftcm. So it was allb of the Cyre-
niacs: bat they underftood pleafure in a yet grollcr fenfe than the
Epicureans did. Many of the philofr.phcrs, in judging of whaL is
according to nature, took in the brute animals into the account.
The Stoics themfelves fometimes did fo, and upon this principle
fonie of them undertook, to juflify incefluous copulations. Eut
for the moft part the Stoics took nature in a higher fenfe, and the
idea they formed of living according to nature was like the idea of
their wife man, little conformable to fli<5l and experience. If we
judge of the human nature by what it appears to be in its prefent
ftate in the generality of mankind, when they come to the ufe
and exercife of their reafon, we fliall not liave a very advantageous
notion of it. The nature of man, as it now is, cannot jufllv be
fet up as a proper rule or ftandard of virtue, but muft itfclf be re-
gulated by an higher law, by which we are to judge of its redi-
tude, and of its corruptions and defeats. And therefore the ableft
of the Stoics in judging of what is according to nature, were for
confidering the nature of man as in a conformity to the law of
reafon, and the nature of the whole. Diogenes Laertius has men-
tioned the feveral explications given by the principal Stoics, of
what it is to live according to nature (x). And they feeni sjene-
rally to have agreed with Chryfippus, that as our natures are parts
of the whole, fo to live according to nature, or to live virtuoufly,
is for a man to live according to his own and the univerfal nature.
I think this way of talking is not well fitted to furnifh us with
{x) Lacrt. lib. vii. fegm. 86, 87, 88.
clear
ja>^6 Tbe Sioics did not gfce a clear Idea oj the \\ Paiifc'IIi
clear notions. And I believe it v/ill be acknowledged, that it would
be of no great advantage to the bulk of mankind to fend them fcr
.direction in their duty to the knowledge of their own nature, and
that of the univerfe. And it is what the wifeft of the human race,
if leftto themfelves, could fcarce attain to, if taken in the extent
in which Cato, after the Stoics, explains it. He arlirms, that
" no man can judge truly of things good and evil, without know-
•" ing.the whole reafon of nature, and even of the life of the gods,
" and whether the nature of man harmonizes or not with the uni-
" verfal nature ( y)." "What an extenfive knowledge is here re-
quired in order to a man's having a juH difcernment of his duty,
and palTmg a right judgment on things good and evil ! How
much more calily and certainly might we come to the knowledge
of our duty, if it were diredly and exprefly determined by a clear
revelation from God himfelf !
,. -■ Another notion, which the Stoics, as well as other philofophers,
advanced of virtue, and which may probably be thought to give
a clearer idea of it, is, that they made it equivalent to what
the Greeks called to /caAci', the Latins " honeftum." And this
feems to be the notion of it which Cicero principally infifts upon,
in his celebrated books De Officiis. And he defcribes the ho-
neftum to be, " that which is juftly to be praifed for its own
(_>') " Ncc vero poteft quifquam de bonis ct malis vcic judicaie, nifi curni cog-
" .nltd ratione naturcc, et vitx ctinni dcorum, et utrum convcniat nccnc, natura
" hominis cum univcrfa ?" Apud Cicero dc Finib. lib. iii. cap. zx. p. 267. edir.
Davis.
" fake.
Chap. XII. Nature of that Virtue they Jo highly extol 247
"" fake, abftracting from all view to profit and reward : which is
"not (o much to be known by this definition, as by the common •
'''judgment of all men, and the ftudies and pradlices of the '
" beft men, who do many things for this only reafon, that-
" it is decent, right, and honeft, though they do not fee any
" advantage that will follow upon it [z)." He here fuppofes the -
honeftum to be that which is approved by the iudgm.ent of all
men, and efpecially by the wifeft and beft of men as decent and
laudable. And I readily acknowledge, that there is a beauty and '
decency in fome anions and afFLdions, which, in the common
judgment of mankind, are excellent and praife- worthy; and that
if the human nature was in a found and uncorrupt ftate, this might
extend very far, and have a great effedl : and even-taking mankind
as they are, it is undoubtedly in many inftances of fignal ufe. But-
it is manifeft from experience, and the obfervation of all ages,
that the moral fenfe and tafte is greatly weakened and de-
praved by erroneous opinions, vicious affedlions, falfe prejudices, •
and worldly felfifh interefts, fo that it is by no means to be de-
pended upon as a fafe and univerfal rule in morals. This has been'
fufFiciently fhewn in the firft chapter of this treatife. It cannot
be denied, that whole nations differ with regard to their notions of'
what is virtuousi decent, and praife-worthy. And whereas Cicero-
(z) " Honeftum id intelligimus, quod tale eft, ut detrafta omni utilitate, fine
" i;!lis praemiis fruftibufque, per fe ipfiim pofTit jure laudari, quod quale fit, non
"tarn di;finitione qua Aim ufus, intelligi poteft (quanqiiain aliquatitum potci'l)'
"quam communi omnium judicio, et optumi cujufque ftudiis atque faflis : qui
" per multa ob tarn unata caufam faciuiit, quia decet, quia re(5tum, quia honeftum
" eft, etfi nullum couftcutuium emoluinentum vident." De Fiuib. lib. ii. c.ip. 14.
p..i2S. edit. Davis.
fccm« •
24.8 The lojfe Doclrinc of tic Slolcs and ether Part II.
fcems here to refer particularly to the judgment of the wife and
good, fur the knowledge of the to tcxMv, or honeftum ; what
fhall we think of Zeno, Chryfippus, and others of the principal
Stoics, who faw no indecency, nothing contrary to the to xxhov,
or beauty of virtue, in the mofb abominable and unnatural impuri-
ties, or the moft inceftuous mixtures [a), or in the community
of women approved by them, by the Cynics, and tlie famous
Plato ; or in the expofing and deflroying weak and fickly children,
which this laft mentioned eminent philofopher, as well as Arif-
totle and others, advifcd and prefcribed ; and which was in ule
in many of the beft policied ilates ? To this may be added, that
pradtice of fuicide, which the Stoics and others not only allowed,
but in feveral inftances recommended and extolled as laudable and
glorious.
From the account that has been given of the Stoical fyftem of
lUorals, and which is accounted the mofl complete that Pagan
philofophy could furnifli, it appears that it could not be depended
upon as a fufficient guide in moral duty. Befides the inftances
already mentioned, I fliall mention one more, which deferves to
be taken notice of j and that is, that many of the phllofophers,
and the Stoics among the reft, were very loofe in their dodlrine
with regard to truth and lying. They thought lying lawful, when
it was profitable, and approved that faying of Menander, that a
lie is better than a hurtful truth.
{a) The fame may be falJ concerning the Pcrfian magi, %vho were fiimous
among the antients for their wifilom.
Plato
Cliap. XII. Philofophers with regurd to 7 ruth and Lying. 249
Plato liiys, he may lie who knows how to do it, ov Skvn xc^i^oj,
in a fitting or needful feafon (^). In his fifth Republic, he lays
it down as a maxim, that it is neceflary for rulers to make ufe of
frequent lying and deceit, for the benefit of their fubjcds, (xux''^
Tu) ■IfjS'oct J^ a.-iroL'T)) xS^^o-t (c). And in his third and fourth books
De Republ. he advlfes governors to make ufe of lies both towards
eaemies and citizens, when it is convenient. In his fecond Re-
public, he allows lying in words on fome occafions, but not lying
in the foul, fo as to believe a falfliood. And in this he was fol-
lowed by the Stoics, who held that a wife man might make ufe
of a lie many ways, duv avyxccTcd^icreMi., without giving affent to
it, as in war, in profped: of fome advantage, and for many other
conveniencies and managements of life, koct aXhoLi ciy.oiofJLi'a.i tbt
£iu TTiAAas ('/). Maximus Tyrius faith, there is nothing vene-
rable, uS'rv asuvjv,' in truth, if it be not profirabic to him that
hears it. He adds, that " a lie is often profitable or advantageous
" to men, and truth hurtful ((■)." This is one inflancc among
many that might be mentioned, feveral of which have been already
produced, to fliew how apt they were to miftake in judging of what
is truly venerable, decorous, and laudable, which yet they made
one of the principal characters of the ts zaAor, or honeftum.
Plato mentions it as an old faying, and which he approves, that
that which is profitable is x.aAar, honourable, and that which is
(li) Apud Stob. fcrm. 12.
(c) Platon. Open, p. 460. D. edit. Lugd. j 590.
(J) Slob. Eclog. Ethic. Pib. ii. p. 183. edit. Plaiitin.
(<•)'^hx. Tyr. differt. 3. p. 35. edit. Oxon. 1678.
Vol.. II. Kk hurtful
Ijo The kofe Dcdtrlne of the Sides and other Part IF,
hurtful is bafe, in ts iS. wc^iyafj-'^v v.x>.ov^ to 3 ^XaQepov ki^pov (/)•
Since, therefore, both he and others of the philofophers held
that a lie in many cafes is profitable, they mufl: hold that a lie
is often y.xXov, honeftum. But that excellent emperor and philo-
fopher Marcus Antoninus, from the generofity of his nature,
judged better in this, as well as fcveral other inftances, than mofl
of the other philofophers. He fay?, that a wife and good man
fliould fay and do nothing falfcly and infincerely, Siz-liu(7'jJvMi ■<}
^£3^' vTroyola-'-a^i, that the mind fliould be jull, and the fpeech fo
as never to tell a lie ; Ao'>®- c/©^ y.-niron O^l^-icueraSrctiy and that
he who lies willingly is guilty of impiety [g). Some of our mo-
dern admirers of the law of nature fall fir fhort of that great phi-
lofopher in this refpe(fl-, and feem to allow nothing comely or
venerable in truth, in itfelf conlidered, but to judge of it merely
by profit or convenience {b).
I have now finiflied the enquiry I prcpofed into the ftateof the
anticnt Heathen world, with regard to a rule of moral duty. I
have confidered the dodrine of morals as taught by their moft
eminent legillators and philofophers in thofe nations which were
(/) Plato Republ. V. Oper. p. 459. D, F. edit. Liif^J. It is to be obfti ved,
that Plato ihere makes life of this nwxim, to. vindicate the women's appe.".nng naked
at thd public exercifes, which he looked upon to be decent, bccaufe in his opinio»
it was profitable for the commonw eidth.
{g) Anton. Medit. book iL fccfV. 17. audbooklv. feft. •53 and 41). and'bookix..
fea. I.
(/;) See particularly what Dr. Tindal fays upon it, whofe doArlne on this
)iead is fully connjercd. Anfwei- to Chrifli.mity as old as the Creation, Vol. I.
«h.ip, vii,
mod
C3iap. X 1 1. Pbikfopbers ivith regard to Truth and Lying. i ^ i
moft renowned for learning and knowledge. It might have been
expedled, that as all the main dodlrines of morals are built upon
the. moft folid grounds, and, when duly confidered, are agreeable
to right reafon, fome of thofe great men would have furnilhed tlie
world with a complete rule of moral duty, which might be fafcly
depended upon. But it appears that in fad it was otherwlfe, and
that the moft celebrated of them miftook or perverted the law of
nature in matters of great importance (/). I think, therefore, it
muft be acknowledged that Mr. Locke was not in the wrong in
aflerting, that " whatever was the caufe, it is evident in faft, that
" human reafon, unaflifted, failed in its great and proper bufinefs
" of morality. It never from unqueflionable principles, by clear
" dedu(5tions, made out an entire body of the law of nature (k)."
The fame excellent author, who was himfelf a great mafter of rea-
fon, and far from denying it any of its juft prerogatives, obferves, that
" it fliould feem by the little that has been hidierto done in it, that
" it is too hard a tafk for unafTifled reafon, to eftabliAi morality in
(/') No particular notice has been here taken of the philofophers of the Alexan*
drian fchool, or of the facred fLiccefTion, as they were calleJ, who flouridtcd a con-
fidcrablc time after ChrilVianit}" hrd made its appearance. Some of thtm had noble
notions of morahty. But t!iey cannot be properly brought as proofs of what un-
affiftcd reafon can do in morals : fince it is generally agieed among the learned,
that they were acquainted with the Holy Scriptures, and with the doftrints and
morals of Chriflianity, of which they made their own advart.age, though they
would not acknowledge the obligation. Hut as to this, I would refer the reader to
what has been obfervcd in the firft volume of this work, at the latter pnrt of the 2 ift
chipter.
{k) Sec Mr. Locke's Rcafonablenefs of ChiiP.ianity, in his Works, Vo!. H,
p. 532. 3d edit.
K k 2 '' ali
252 The loofe DoSirine of the Stoics, &c. Part IT.
" all its parts, with a clear and convincing light (/)." But wliat-
ever be fuppofed concerning this, what he afterwards obferves
cannot be reafonably denied, that " be the caufe what it will, our
" Saviour found mankind under a corruption of manners and
" principles, which age after age had prevailed, and muft be con-
*' fefled was not in a way or tendency to be mended. — The rules
" of morality were in different countries and fedls different, and
*' natural rcafon no where had nor was like to cure the defcds
" and errors in them (w)." This could only be effedually done
by a Divine Revelation, and how admirably Chriftianity was fitted
to anfwcr this excellent end, I fliall now proceed to fhcw.
(/) -Mr. Locke's Re.ifonablcnefs of Chrifti.nnity, in his Works, Vol. IT. p. 532.
3':1 edit. There is a remark;ib!e paflage to the fame purpofe in an author who h;is
Ihcwn hiinfelf far from being prejudiced in favour of Revelation. Mor. Philof.
Vol. r. p. 143, 144. I have already cited this pafliige in the Preliminary Dif-
courfe, p.; 10, II.
(»;) Locke, ubi fupra, p. 534^,
c ri A p
Chap. XIIT. Deplorable State of the Heathem^ 0c. 253
CHAP. XIII.
Thbe nations ivere funk into a deplorable Jlate of Corrupt ion y with
regard to morahy at the time of our Saviour's appearing. To
recover t kern from their ilt etched and guilty Jiate to holinefs and
happinefs, one principal end for which God fent his Son into the
world. The Gfpel Difpenfation opened with a free offer of
pardon and fahation to perifiing finners^ upon their returning
to God by faith and repentance y and new obedience : at the fame
time the beji dire^ions and ajjijlances were given to engage them
to a holy and virtuous praSlice. The Go/pel fcheme of morality
exceeds whatfoever had been publijl;ed to the world bfore. A
fummary reprefentation cf the excellency of the Gofpel precepts
with regard to the duties we owe to God, our neighbours, and
curfehes. Tbefe precepts enforced by the moji powerful and im-
portant motives. The tendency cf the Gofpel to promote the prac-
tice of holiness and virtue, an argument to prove the Divinity of
the Chrijiian Revelation.
FROM the account which hath been given it appears, that
the Pagan nations, even thofe of them which were mod
learned and civilized, were funk about the time of our Saviour'^
coming into the moft deplorable corruption in regard lO morals,
God had in his wife and good providence done a great deal to
preferve among men a icn^Q and knowledge of their duty, hut
they had neglected and abufed their advantages. By the influence
oi" vicious appetites, corrupt habits and cuftoms, and wrong
opiniuus.
:y4> Dt'phrable State of the Heathens with rfgar J Part 11,
opinions, their moral fenfe and tafle was become greatly depraved.
The divine laws which had been originally given to mankind,
and the traditions relating to them, were very much cbfcured and
defixccd. What pafted among them for religion, and which
ought to have been the greatefl prefer\ ative to their morals, was
amazingly corrupted. Their manifold idolatries, the rites of their
worfliip, and the examples of their deities, contributed not a little
to the general depravity. The laws of their refpe<n:ive countries
were by no means fitted to be an adequate rule of morals, and irj
many inflanccs allowed and even prefcribed things not confiftent
with the purity of religion and virtue. The fame may be faid of
their philofophers and moralifls: many of them did hurt by their
maxims and their examples. The beft of them were deficient in
material points of duty ; and they generally countenanced the
people in their idolatries, and gave a great loofe to fcnfual impu*
rities. And even where they were right, and gave good in-
ftrudlions, their fineft fentiments had little weight, and pafTed
only for beautiful fpecalations of this or that philofopher, but
were not looked upon as laws obligatory upon mankind. They
had no divine authority to plead, or, if they had pretended it, were
not able to produce any proofs or credentials to fliew that God had
fent them to declare his will.
i In this condition the ftate of things grew worfe and worfe : and
at the time when thcGofpel was publifhed, all kinds of wickcd-
nefs and diflblutenefs of manners had arrived to a moft amazing
height. This is rcprefented in a very ftriking manner in the firft
chapter of St. Paul's Epiftle to the Romans. And the account
7 he
Chap. XIII. to Morals at the Time of our Saviour's Coming. 255
he gives is attefted and confirmed, even with regard to the moft
(liocklng part of the defcription, the monftrous and unnatural
vices and impurities which prevailed among them, by undeniable
tcilimonies of tlae moft celebrated Pagaa writers, philofophers,
poets, and hiftorians. The extreme corruption of manners in the
Heathen world is reprefented in feveral other parts of the New
Teftamcnt. Hence they are faid to be " dead in trefpafles and
" fins." And St. John gives this emphatical defcription of their
flatc, " The whole world lieth in wickednefs («)."
Juflly might God have left the nations to peridi in their fins,
but in his great mercy he had compafhon upon tlicm in this their
wretched and loll eftate. At the time which had been marked
out by a feries of illultrious prophecies, and which was in itfelf
the fittcft, and when the great need men ftood in of an extraordi-
nary interpoiition in the caufe of religion and virtue was moft ap-
parent, it pleafed God, in his infinite wifdom and goodnefs, to fend
his own Son into the world to fave and redeem mankind, and to
recover them from their guilty and corrupt ftate to holinefs and
happinefs. God had for a long time fufFered the nations to walk
in their own ways, without making any new and extraordinary
difcoveries of his will to them. But now he commanded all men
cvcry-where to repent. The wrath of God was revealed from
heaven in the Gofpel againft all ungodlinefs and unrighteoufnefs
of men. The clearcft difcoveries were made of the great evil
{n) I John V. 19. See alfo Eph. ii. i, 2, 3. iv. i8, ?9. v. 6, 7, 11. 12. 1 Pet.
iv. 3, 4. 1 Theff. iv. 5. .ind other ^ilaces to the fame piirpofc.
of
2 j6 One gi cat Dcfigncj the Ch ijliiiii Revrhition iv.is Part II.
of tliofe idolatries, that wickediier? and corruption of all kiiuls in
which mankind were then generally involved. The confcqucnce
of this mufl have been, that when tliey were thoroughly convinced
of the evil of their ways, a fenfe of their guilt would be apt to fill
them with awful thoughts of the divine vengeance juflly due to
them for their manifold offences. It pleafed God, therefore, in his
fovereign grace and wifdom, fo to order it, that the Gofpel Dif-
penfation opened with a free and univerfal offer of pardoning
mercy. They were affured, that upon their returning to God
through Jefus Chrift, the great Saviour whom he had provided,
by a humble faith and fincere repentance, their pall iniquities
fhoukl be forgiven them, they fliould be received into the divine
favour, and admitted to the moft glorious hopes and privileges.
At the fame time, the moft holy and excellent laws and precepts
were given them for inftructing and direcSling them in their duty.
And God condefccnded to deal with them in tlie way of a gracious
covenant, which contained the moft clear and exprefs promifes of
eternal life and happinefs as the reward of their ftncere perfevering
obedience. What happy tidings were tliefe to a guilty apoftatc
world, to creatures ready to perifti in their fins ! And what a
glorious difplay was made of the divine goodnefs and love to
mankind !
What the fubjed I am now upon leads me particularly to con-
fidcr, is tlie excellency of the Gofpel morality, as delivered to us
in the Sacred writings. The Scriptures of the Old Teftament are
full of admirable precepts and inftru6tif)ns relating to the duties
Vihich God rcquircth of man. Thcfe liad been publifhcd long
before,
Chap. XIII. to gh-e us a per feci Rule of moral Duty. 157
before, and as the Jews and their Scriptures were generally dif-
perfed, it is reafonable to conclude that they were of ufe to many
of the Gentiles who had accefs to them. But the Jews were for
the mofl part very unpopular, and kept feparate by diftind rites
and ufages, and their dodlors had by wrong interpretations wrefted
and perverted the true fenfe of the law and prophets. And even
with regard to feveral of the moral precepts, they had, as our Sa-
viour charges them, made the law void by their traditions, teach-
ing for dodrines the commandments of men. One valuable end
therefore of his coming with fuch illuflrious proofs of his divine
authority and mlfTion, was to clear tlie true fenfe of the law and
the prophets, to confirm and eflabliih the moral precepts, and
carry them to a flill higher degree of excellence, and give them
additional light and force. As he came to inftrudt men in the
right knowledge of God, and the nature of true religion, fo
alfo to fet before them a complete rule of moral duty in its juft
extent, enforced by all the fandions of a divine authority, and
by the moll powerful and engaging motives, and beautifully exem-
plified in his own facred life and pradice. To confider tlie evange-
lical fcheme of morality at large, as it juftly deferves, would fur-
nifh matter for a diflindl volume, and could not well be brought
within the compafs of this work. But it may be of ufe to fet be-
fore the reader a fummary of it under three principal heads, as re-
lating to the duties required of us with refpedl to God, our neigh-
bours, and ourfelves, which St. Paul expreffes by our Hving foberly,
righteoufly, and godly in this prefent world.
Vol. II. LI The
2 $9 A S'utnmary of the Go/pel Morality Part IE..
The moft eminent part of our duty, which is the firft in order
and dignity, and gives a binding force to all the reft, is the duty
we more immediately owe to God. And as a right idea of the
Supreme Being lies at the foundation of the duties we owe him,
fo it is not poflible to form more juft, more noble, and fublime
ideas of the Deity than are held forth to us in the facred writings,
both of the Old Teftament and of the New. All the admirable
defcriptions of the divine nature and attributes, which arc to be
found in the lav/ and the prophets, do alfo belong to the religion
of Jefus, who hath farther confirmed and improved them. We
are taught that there is one only the living and true God, wlio
exifteth of himfelf from everlafting to everlafting : that he is a
fpirit, invifible to a mortal eye, and who is not to be reprefented
by any corporeal form : that he is poffefTed of all poffible perfec-
tion, and in him is no variablenefs, neither fliadow of turning (o).
That his greatnefs is unfearchable, his underftanding is infinite,
his power almighty and irrefiftible (/>). That at the time which
feemed moft fit to his own wifdom and goodnefs he made hea-
ven and earth, and all things that are therein y he only commanded
Snd they were created : that he continually upholdeth all things
by the word of his power: and in him all things confift (^).
That he excrcifeth an univerfal government and Providence over
(o) The pafTIiges of Scripture relating to the Divine Nature and Attributes are
too many to be here enumerated, I can only point to a very few. Exod. iii. 14.
Deut. vi. 4. Pfal. xc. 2. cii. 26. John iv. 24. i Tim. vi. 16. Jam. i. 17.
(/) Pfal. cxlv. 3. aUvil. 5. John xi. 7. xii. 13.
(5) Gen. i. 1.3, &c. Pfal. xxxlii. 6, 7, 8, 9. cxlvili. 5. Kthun. L\. 5, 6.
Arts xiv. ic. Col. i. 16. Revel, iv. 11.
al
Chap. XIII. as delivered in the Sctiplvres. "^^
•all the orders of beings which he hath created. And particular
care is taken to. inform us, that though he be infinitely • exalted
above our higheft conceptions, and though it be a condefcenfion
in him to regard the moft exalted of created Beings, yet his care
extendeth to the meaneft of his creatures. But we are in an efpe-
ciak manner aflured, of What it moft nearly concerneth us to
know, that his providential care extendeth to the individuals of
the human race : that he is the author of all the good things we
enjoy, and that all the events which befal us are under his direc-
tion and fuperintendency (r). Tl>at he filleth heaven and earth
with his prefence, and is not far from any of us, feeing it is in
him that we live, move, and have our being : that all things are
naked and opened unto him, and tliere is not any creature that is
n<?t naanifeil in his fight (s).
But above all we are there inftruded to form right notions of
God's illuftrious moral perfedlions : that he is infinitely wife, and
diredeth all things in the beft and fitteft manner (/) : and though
fometimes clouds and darknefs are about him, and we cannot
penetrate into the reafons of his difpenfations, yet he is righteous
in all his ways, and holy in all his works : that he is of invariable
faitlifulnefs and truth, and that it is impoflible for God to lie («).
(r) Pfal. ciii. 19. Job iv. 18. Pfal. cxlli. 5, 6, 7. Pfal. cxlv, ij, 16.
Matth. vi. 26.30. X. 29, 30. 1 Sam. ii. 6, 7, 8.
(j) Pfal. cxxxix. 7 — 12. Jerem. x.\ui. 24. A<f\s xvii. 27, 2S. Heb. iv. 13.
it) Dcut. xxxii. 4. I Tim. i. 17.
((/) PfaLxcvii. 2.cxlv. f7. cxvii. 2. Tit. I. 2. Hcb.vi. 18.
L 1 2 That
2tfo A Summary of the Gojpel Morality Part IT.
That he is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his
works: and he is continually doing good even to the finful hu-
man race (x). That he is the God, not of the Jews only, but alfo
of the Gentiles: and that with him there is no refpedt of perfons, but
in every nation he that feareth God, and worketh righteoufnefs,
is accepted of him (^). The mercy of God towards peninent re-
turning finners is frequently declared both in the Old Teftament
and in, the New. But it is efpecially in the gofpel that all the
riches of divine grace are reprefented in the moft engaging man-
ner, and the wonderful love of God towards mankind is moft
affetftingly difplayed in the methods of our redemption and falva-
tion through Jefus Chrift. And therefore that moft amiable de-
fcription is there given of him, that " God is love [z)" Yet at the
fame time, that the riches of the divine grace and mercy may not
be abufed as an encouragement to liccntioufnefs, he is every where
reprefented in Scripture as infinitely juft and h^oly : his goodnefs,
as there defcribed to us, is not fuch a foft indulgence as might e;7-
courage finncrs to tranfgrefs his laws with impunity, but is al-
j ways in corijunftioh with the moft perfeft wifdom and righteouf-
nefs. His juft difpleafure againft fin, and the punilhments he will
inflidt on obftinate impenitent finners, are reprefented in a ftriking
manner. And we are alfured that he will judge the world in
righteoufnefs, and render to all men according to their deeds,
.0. ,;,•
(x) Pfa!. cxlv. 9. Maith. V. 4;. AcTlsxIv. 17.
(_y) Exod. xxxiv. 6, 7. Pfal. Ixxxvi. 9. 15. If. Iv. 7. Rom. iii. 29. Ads
^- 34> 35- 2 Pet. iii. 9.
(r) 1 John iv. 8, 9, 10. 16 ,
not
Chap; XIII. as delivered in the Scriptures^ ^i
not merely their outward adions, but the fccret difpolitions of
their hearts {a).
Such is the idea which is there given us of God and his glorious
perfedions and attributes : the nobleft that can be conceived, and
the beft fitted to produce worthy afFedions and difpofitions to-
wards him. And accordingly as in the Gofpel we are inftrudled
to form, the mofl becoming notions of the Deity, fo we have the
moft excellent directions given us as to the duties we fhould render
to him.
We are commanded to love tlie Lord our God with all our
heart, and foul, and mind, and ftrength : this our Saviour repre-
fents as the firfi: and great commandment {b). And what an ami-
able idea docs this give us of religion, as flowing from and com-
prehended in this divine principle ! It includes our having the
higheft efteenx and admiration of his incomparable perfections,
and elpecially of his marvellous grace and goodnefs ; that wc muft
rejoice and delight ourfelves in him, and feek for our highelt hap-
pinefs in him alone [c). That we muft be animated with a pure
zeal for his glory, and muft prefer the pleafing and honouring
him before the gratifying our flefhly inclinations, or promoting
our worldly interefts, all which we muft be ready to abandon
when called to do fo for his fake, or, which is the fame thing, for
(a) Ecclef. xii. 14. Afts xvii. 31. Rom. li, 9, 10. 16.
{b) Deut. vi. 5. Matth. xxii. 37, 38.
{.) Pful. xxxvij. 4. Ixxiu. 2j. Phil. iv. 4,
the
i6i A Summary of the Go/pel Morality ' Part II.
the caufe of truth, real religion, and righteoufnefs (<■/). Divine
love is the fource of a holy, ingenuous, delightful obedience,
tlonce it is declared, that " this is the love of God, that we keep
" his commandments (f).
But then we arc alfo taught, that this love to God, in order to
its being of the right kind, mufl be accompanied with a holy
fear of his Divine Majefty : a temper highly becoming reafonable
creatures, towards the fupreme and abfolutcly perfeft Being, our
Almighty Maker, our Sovereign Lord, and moll righteous Gover-
nor and Judge. This is offuch importance, that the fear of God
and real piety are often made ufe of as terms of the fame fignifi-
cation. To ferve God with reverence and godly fear is reprefent-
ed as effentiai to a true and acceptable worfliip (/'). And where
this prevails, it will be the moft effcdtual prefervative againft fin
and wickednefs, it will produce in us the profoundefl fubmiflion
to his divine authority, it will make us afraid, above all things,
of offending him, and will raife us above the bafe and inordinate
fear of men {g).
It is alfo required of us, that we exercife a firm truft and con-
fidence in him, and an entire unreferved refignation to his will,
from afteady perfuafion of his juft dominion over us, his power,
{d) Matth. V. 10. x. 37.
{e) I John V. 3.
(/) Deut. X. 20. Hcb. xii. 28.
(5) Prov. xvi. 6. Ecclef. xii. 13. Luke xii. 4, 5. i Pet. iji. 14, 15.
3 wifdom.
Chap. XIII. as delivered in the Scriptures, 261
wifdom, goodnefs, and all-fufficiency (/j). On him we are en-
couraged to caft all our burdens and cares, to commit ouifelves
wholly to his difpofal, and to acquicfce in all his providential
dilpenfations, being fatisfied that he ordereth all things really for
the beft, and will caufe all events to work together for good to
them that love him (/').
We are every where taught in Scripture that an habitual regard
to God, to his prefence and approbation, muft influence our whole
condudl. This is expreffed by our walking before the Lord, and
walking worthy of the Lord, unto all pleafing. We are diredted
to refer all to God ; to make it our conftant care and endeavour
to glorify him in the world with our bodies and fpirits which are
hisi and are commanded whether we eat or drink, or whatfoever
we do, to do all to tlie glory of God (/i).
As God is the great original of all perfedlion and excellence,
and his moral attributes are in an efpecial manner very clearly re-
vealed to us in the facred Writings, fo it is there reprefented as
a noble part of our duty to afpire after a conformity to him in-
them, as far as he is imitable by fuch frail creatures as we are.
It is required of us that we endeavour to be holy as he is holy,
perfedt (as far as our limited capacities will allow) as our Heavenly.
Father is perfedt, and to be followers or imitators of God as be-
{h) Pfal. Ixii. 8. If. xxvi. 4. i Tim. vi. 17.
(1) Pfal. xxxviL 4, 5. Pfal. Iv. 22. i Pet. v. 7. Rom. vili. 28.
") Gen.xvii. i. Pfal. cxvi, 9. Col. i. 10. i Cor, vi. 20. x- 31.
comcth
a(J4 A Summary of the Go/pel Morality Part IT,
Cometh dear children (/). And for this we have peculiar advantages
under the Gofpcl, as we have his moral excellencies and perfec-
tions, his holinefs and purity, his love andgoodnefs, his faithful-
ncfs and truth, his condefcending grace and mercy, moft beauti-
fully exemplified in his well beloved Son, the unfpotted image of
his own excellence. It is then we beft refemble God, when the
fame mind is in us that was in Chrift Jefus.
With refpedt to the worfliip we arc to render to the Supreme
Being, we are required to worfliip him who is an infinite Spirit
in fpirit and in truth. The worfhipping fldfe gods, and the wor-
fhipping the true God under corporeal images and reprefentations,
is moft exprefly forbidden (;«). The multiplicity of idol deities
which were adored in the Pagan world, whilft the only true God
was negledied, together with the cruel, the impure, and abfurd
rites of their worHiip, are rejedled. And under the Gofpel we
are alfo freed from the various rites and facrifices prefcribed in the
law of Mofes, which though originally inftituted for wife ends,
well fuited to that time and ftate of things, yet were burdenfome
in the obfervance, and not fo fitted to that more fpiritual and
perfeift difpenfation which our Saviour came to introduce. Tlicre
is a noble purity and fimplicity in the Gofpel-worfliip as reprc-
fented in the New Teftament ; and the facred rites and ordinances
there prefcribed are few in number, and excellent in their ufe and
(/) Matt. V. 48. Eph. V. I, 2. I Pet. i. 15, 16.
(w) Exod. XX. 3, 4, 5. Matt. iv. 10. John iv. 24. Gal. iv. 8. i ThefT.
i. 9. Afls xiv. 15.
fignificancy.
Chap. XIII. as delivered in the Scriptures. 265
fignificancy. And at the fame time great care is taken to inflrudl
us, that no external rites will be of any advantage or avail to our
acceptance with God without real holinefs of heart and life.
As to the fpiritual facrifices of prayer and praife, we have botli
the heft diredtions given us in the facred Writings, and the nobleft
patterns fet before us of a pure and elevated devotion. We are
there taught to celebrate and adore his tranfcendent excellencies
and perfections, as fliining forth in his wonderful works ; and in
the revelations of his word, and to give him the praife that is due
to his great and glorious name(«). To him we are diredled to
offer up our thankful acknowledgments for all the mercies we re-
ceive, and our petitions and fupplications for all the good things
we ftand in need of: which tends to keep up in our minds a con-
ftant fenfe of our abfolutc dependence upon God, and our great
obligations to his goodnefs (<?). We mufl: alfo confefs our fins
before him with penitent and contrite hearts, humbling ourfelves
on the account of them, and imploring his mercy ; which is a part
of religion juftly becoming finful creatures, and frequently recom-
mended in the Holy Scriptures (/•).
It is farther to be obferved, that we are required in the Gofpel
to offer up our prayers, and praifes, and folemn adls of devotion
(;;) See Pfal. ciii. civ. cxlviii. Nehem. ix. 5, 6. i Tim. i. 17. vi. 15, \6.
Rev. iv. 10, II. V. 13. XV. 3, 4.
(5) Pflil. cvli. cxxxvi. I The/r. v. 17, 18. Matt. vi. 6—13. vii. 7—11.
Phil. iv. 6. Pfal. Lxv. 2.
(/) Pfal. xxxii. 5. Prov. xsviii. 13. i Joho i. 9.
Vol IJ. M m to
2 66 A S'lrnmary of the Go/pel Mcrality Part II.
to God in thf ni*me of Jefus Chrift, the great Mediator whom he
hath in hie- infinite vvifdoni and goodnell appointed fur the great
work of redeeming and faving mankind. This is the ftated order
of the Gofpel-worfhip (./). And the regard we are obHged to
have in all things to tlve Mediator, through v/hom we have accefs
by one Spirit unto the Father, is a wile and gracious provifion for
God's difpenfing his bleffings to us in fuch a way as is moft be-
coming his own infinite Majefty, and the honour of his govern-
ment and perfeftioiis. It tendeth botli to imprefs our hearts with
a juft of itnic of God's infinite greatnefs and fpotlefs purity, and
of the evil of fin, wlfich rendereth us unfit to approach imme-
diately to io holy and glorious a majefty ; and is at the iame time
excellently fitted to difpel our guilty jealoufies and fears, and to
infpire us with an ingenuous truft and affiance in him. For we
cannot now reafonably doubt of God's kind intentions towards
us, and of his gracious acceptance of our fincere though imperfeft
fervices, fince he requires us to offer them to him in the name of
his well-beloved Son, in whom he " is always well-pleafcd," whO'
by his wife appointment offered himfelf a facrifice for our fins, and
who " is able to fave unto the uttermofl all them that come unto
" God by him, feeing he ever livcthtomakeintercefTionfor us(r)."
The Gentiles had fome notion of the propriety of applying to God
through a Mediator, which perhaps might be owing to fome re-
mains of an ancient tradition derived from the firft ages. But
this, like other branches of the primitive religion, became greatly
(y) John xvi. 23. Col. iii. 17. Eph. ii. 18.
(r) Hcb. iv. 14, 15, 16. vU. 25. i John ii. 3.
^ perverted
Chap. XI IT. as delivered in the Scriptures. J4J7,
perverted and obfcured. As they had a multiplicity of idol gods,
lo alfo of idol mediators : and thefe being all of their own devif-
ing, without any divine warrant and appointment, fpread a ftrange
confufion through their worfliip. They had, as St. Paul ex-
prefleth it, " gods many, and Lords many," whom they wor-
fliipped and adored: but to us Chriflians, " there is but one God
" the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him ; and one
" Lord Jefus Chrift, by whom are all things, and we by him."
And he elfe where obferves, that " there is one God and one Me-
*' diator between God and man, and that Jefus Chrift is he {s)."
And our regard to tliis great Mediator, inftead of taking off our
regards from God our heavenly Father, tends rather to heighten
our reverence of his Divine Majefty, our love to him, our confi-
dence in him, and to fill us with the higheft admiration of his
wifdom and goodnefs. For it is he that in his fovereign grace
and love hath appointed his only-begotten Son to be the Saviour
of mankind, through whom he communicateth to us the moft
valuable blelTmgs [t).
Not only doth Chriftianity give the moft excellent precepts
and direftions with refpedt to the duties we more immediately
owe to God, but aUb with regard to the duties incumbent upon
us towards our fellow-creatures.
{s) 1 Cor. viii. 5, 6. i Tim. ii. 5.
(/) I have clicwherc more largely vindicated tlic Cofpcl do5lriiie of tlic Me-
diator, as higlily tending to the glory of God, and the good of mankind. Anfwer
to Chrift. as old as the Creation, vul. II. cap. xv.
M m 2 Thefe
26 S A Summary cf the Gojpel Morality Part H.
Thefe may be ranked under two comprehenfive heads, the
doing iuftly and loving mercy ; and the precepts dehvered to ifs
in the Holy Scriptures, and particularly in the Gofpel of Jefus, are
admirable with refpedl to boih thele. It may be fuffieient to point
to a few of them.
It is required of us that we be far from offering the lead wrong
or injury to others, in their perfons, their properties, or reputa-
tions : that we render unto all their dues : that we lie not one to
another, but fpeak every man truth to his neighbour, and provide
things honeft in the flight of all men. All fraud and falfliood in
our words and dealings, and all injuflice and violence, is moll: ex-
prefly forbidden {it). Not only niuft we abftain from injurious
adions, but we are required not to be angry at our brother without
a caufe, to fpeak evil of no man, and neither to raife evil reports
ourfelves againfl: our neighbour, nor fpread them abroad whert
raifed by others (.v). We are forbidden to pafs raHi judgments
upon others, left we ourfelves fhould be judged of God : on the
contrary, wc muft put the bcft conftrudtions upon their word? and
adlions which the cafe will bear(v). And our Saviour incul-
cates it in the ftrongeft manner, that no feeming adls of piety
and devotion, or a dihgence in the ritual obfervances of religion,
will compenfate for the wrongs or injuries done to our neighbours,
(u) Micah VI. 2. Lcvit. xix. ii. 13. 15. 35, 36. Rom. xiii. 7. Eph- Lv.
i5. 2 Cor. viii. 21.
(.x) Pfal.xv. 3. M;itt. V. 21, li. Tit. iii. 2.
{y) Mutt. vii. i, 2. Rom. xiv. 10. 1 Cor. xiii. 5. 7. J.iracs iv. n.
nor
Chap. XIII. as delivered in the Scriptures, 2Sp
nor will be accepted of God without making reparation, as far as
is in our power for thofe injuries and wrongs (2).
Not only doth the Gofpel forbid the injuring our neighbour in
any refpedt whatfoever, but it mofl: exprefly binds it upon us as our
duty to do good to all men as far as we have ability and opportu-
nity. We are required to aflift them in their neceflities and di-
ftreffes, to fympathize with them in their afflidlions and furrows,
as well as to rejoice in the good things which befal them, to be
ready to diftribute to them of our worldly fublliance for fupply-
ing their wants, to endeavour to convert them from the error of
their way, and to reprove them when guilty of faults in the fpirit
of meeknefs, and finally, to do all we can to promote their wel-
fare fpiritual and temporal (a). Our Saviour the more effedliully
to (hew the great importance of the duties of charity and mercy
afliires us, that particular notice fliall be taken of them at the
great day of judgment, and that men fliall then be rewarded oi*
condemned, according to their abounding in or negle<fling the
practice of thofe duties.
And whereas the mofl difficult part of the duty required of us
towards mankind relates to the temper and condudl we are to
obferve towards our enemies and thofe that have injured us, our
bleflcd Lord hath given us in this refpedl the moft admirable pre-
(z) Mau. V. 23, 24. xxiii. 23. If. I. II — 18.
(ii) If. i. I7.1viii. 6 — II. G.-iL vi. lo, i Tim. vi. 18. Hebr. xlii. 3. 16,
James V. 20. Gal. vi. 1. Levit. xbt. 17. Rom. xii. 15.
eepts
270 A Summary of the G of pel Morality Part II.
cepts and diredions. If we have fuffered injuries from others, he
enjoineth us to exercife a forgiving temper towards them, and
not to give way to the bitternefs of revenge. Some of our Lord's
precepts to this purpofe in his admirable fermon on the mount, are
expreffed in a proverbial way, and not to be urged in the utmofl
rigour; but the defign of them is obvious and excellent, to fupprefs
as far as poflible the motions of a furious and vindidlive fpirit,
which hath done fo much mifchief in the world, and to fignify
to us, that it is better patiently to bear injuries, than to be forward
to retaliate them. He hath required us to infert it in our prayers,
that God would forgive us our fins, as we forgive others the of-
fences committed againft us. The fame is the defign offome of
his excellent parables. And in this as well as other inftances the
apoftles taught the fame dodlrine with their divine Lord and
Mafter, that we fhould not avenge ourfelvcs, that wc fhould re-
compenfe to no man evil for evil, and inftead of being overcome
of evil, fliould overcome evil with good (^b).
This leads me to add, that our Lord not only forbiddcth the
rendering evil for evil, but commandeth us to render good for
evil. This is the defign of that glorious precept, whereby we are
commanded to love our enemies, to blcfs them that curfe us, to
do good to them tiiat hate us, and to pray for them that defpite-
fully ufe us and perfecute us. Inftead of curfing we mufi pray
to God fur them, not indeed that they may go on and profper in
{h) Rom. xii. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. 1 Thc/l". v. 15. i Pet. iii. 9. Levij.
xix. 18.
their
Chap. XIII. as delivered in the Scriptures, iji
ilick evil courfes, but tliat they may be brought to a right temper
of mind, and lb may become the objedts of the divine favour :
and if they be reduced to diftrefs, we mufl be ready to affifl: and
fervc them in the kind offices of humanity. " If thine enemy
" hunger, feed him ; if he thirfl:, give liim drink (c)." And
this certainly is carrying benevolence to the nobleft height. And
though there have been high pretenders to reafon who liave found
fault with it, yet fome of the moft eminent among the antient
philofophers, as was obferved before, have been fenfible of the
beauty and excellency of fuch a condudl, but they wanted the
authority neceffary to make it a law obligatory on mankind. But
in the Gofpel of Jefus it is more ftrongly enforced, urged with
more powerful motives than ever it was before, and is bound upon
us by a mofl exprefs divine authority. To this it may be added,
that our Lord hath exprefly condemned that fpirit, which carries
men to perfecute and do hurt to others, under pretence of zeal for
the caufe of God and religion (J).
Upon the whole, it is the manifeft and uniform defign and
tendency of the Gofpel of Jefus to recommend and enforce an
univerfal benevolence. It lays the foundation of the duties we
owe to mankind in love. It is there given as a comprehenfive
fummary of the duties we owe to mankind : " Thou flialt love
" thy neighbou.-- as thyfelf {e)." And by our neighbour we arc
(f) Matt. V. 43, 44. Rom. xii. 20. Prov. xxv. 21.
{d) Luke ix. 54, 55, 56.
{c) Malt. xxiL 39. Rom. xiii. 8, 9. Jam. ii. 8. Levit. >us. 18.
taught
J7% A Summary of the Go/pel Morality Part II,
taught to underftand not merely thofe of the fame country, na-
tion, and religion with ourfelvcs, but all of the human race tliat
ftand in need of our kindnefs, and to whom we have an oppor-
tunity of doing good. This is beautifully exemplified by our
Saviour, in the parable of the good Samaritan (/). To which
may be added, that other remarkable precept, " Whatfoever ye
" would that men ftiould do unto you, do ye even fo to them {g)."
A rule which, if rightly confidered, would be of great ufe in re-
gulating our condud towards our fellow-creatures.
But though we are required to love and do good to all men,
the defign is not, as fome who are defirous to impeach the Gofpel
morality would infinuate, that we fliould have the fame degree of
affection for all. The fpecial love and efleem which good men
fliould have for one another, and the peculiar ties by wliich they
are united, additional to the common ties of humanity, are re-
commended and enforced in the llrongeft and moft engaging man-
ner, and lay the propereil foundation for all the intimacies of facred
friend fhip (b).
Befides the general precepts, prefcribing the duties of juftice and
benevolence towards all mankind, there are alfo particular in-
jundlions given us with refpedt to the duties incumbent upon us in
(/) Lukcx. 33, 34, 35-
{g) Matt. vii. 12.
{h) John xiii. 34, 35. Gal. vi. 10. Eph. Iv. i — 6. Th'd. ii. I — 5. i Pet,
!. 22. I Joha iii. 16.
the
Chap. XIII. ^s delivered in the Scriptures. 273
the fcveral ftatlons and relations we bear in the civil and fbcial
life. And thefe are of great importance to the welfare of nations,
families, and particular perfons. The duties of princes, magiftrates,
and fubjeds, are excellently reprefcnted, every way fufficient, if
duly attended to, to preferve the good order and welfare of fociety.
It is required, that they that rule over men be juft, ruling in the
fear of God. Kings and all in authority are taught to confider
thcmfclves as under the dominion of the great and univerfal Sove-
reign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, to whom they muft
be accountable for their condudt, who hath appointed them for
the good of the people over whom he hath placed them, that
they may adminifler jufticc and judgment without refpe^l of per-
fons, and be a terror not to good works, but to the evil (/"). Sub-
jects are taught to be fubmiffive and obedient to the higher powers,
to pray for them, to fear God and honour the king, to give unto
Cicfar the things which are Ca^far's, to render tribute to whom
tribute is due, cuflom to whom cuflom, fear to whom fear, ho-
nour to whom honour J and to do all this, not merely becaufe the
civil laws require it, and for fe^rr of punirtiment from men, but
for confcience fake, and in obedience to the laws of God [k). In
like manner it is urged as a neceflary part of religion, for fervants
to obey and ferve their mailers, with all proper refpedt, fidelity,
and diligence, not purloining, not anfwering again, with good-
(i) Dcut. i. 16, 17. 2 Sam. xxiii. 3. 2 Chroii. xix. 6, 7. Pfal. Ixxxv. i — 4.
Piov. XX. 26 — 28. xxLx. II. 14. Ecclef. v. 8. Rom. xiii. 3, 4. i Pet. ii. 13,
14, IS-
[h) Matt. xxii. 21. Rom. xiii. i, 2. 5, 6, 7. i Tim. ii. 2. Tit. iii. i.
1 Pet. ii. 15, 14.
Vol. II. Nn will
i74 -^ Summary^ of tlx Go/pel Morality Part II.
will doing fervice as unto the Lord, and not unto men, knowing
that whatfoever good thing any man doth, that fliall he receive
of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. Thefc things, when
really believed, and duly confidered, will liave a much ftronger
influence to engage them to a faithful and chearful difcharge of
their duty, than mere cuftom, or the laws of the country. On
the other hand, mafters are required to give unto their fervants
that which is juft and equal, forbearing threatening?, knowing
that they alfo liave a Mafter in heaven, and that with him there
is no refpedl of perfons (/). The duties of huihands and wives
are alfo admirably defcribed, and enforced by motives proper to
the Chriftian difpenfation, additional to thofe drawn from the law
of nature and reafon [in). The fame thing may be faid of the
duties of parents and children («). In like manner, fuperiors and
inferiors, the elder and younger, the rich and the poor, are di-
recSkd to a proper condiidl towards one another: and rules arc
given which tend to regulate the deportment of equals among
themfclves, that they lliould be courteous, in honour preferring
one another, not willingly giving offence to any, and endeavour-
ing as far as pofhble to live peaceably with all men (o). In a wx)rd,
all the various offices of humanity, juftice, and charity, due from
one man. to another, are frequently defcribed in the SacrecJ Vlii'rit-
(/) Eph. vi. 5 — 9. Col. iii. ^^ — 25. iv. i. i Tim. vi. i, 2. Tit. ii. 9,
10, II. Dcut. xxiv. 14, 15. Job xxxi. 13, 14, 15,
(w) Eph. V. 22 — 33. Col. iii. 18, 19. Tit. ii. 4, 5. i Pet. iii.
(/:) Exod. XX. 16. Eph. vi. i — 4. Col. Hi. 20, 21. i Tim. v. 4 — 8.
(c) Rom. xii. lo. i6. 18. 1. Cor. x. 32. Phil. ii. 3. i Pet. ii. 17. iii. 8.
T. 5.
UlgS,
Chap. XIII. as delivered in the Scriptures. 27 >•
ings, enforced by the mofl: powerful motives, and by the authority
of God himfclf, which, where it is firmly believed, mufl come
with greater force upon the confcience than the mere inftitu-
tions of human legiflators, or the reafonings of philofophers and
moralifls.
Thefe hints may give us an idea of the excellency of the Scrip-
ture precepts with refped to that part of morality which relates to
tlie duties we owe to mankind.
As to that part of our duty which relates more immediately to
ourfelves, to the governing our affedions, appetites, and paflions,
and to the due regulation and improvement of our own temper,
the Gofpel law is peculiarly excellent. With regard to the angry
palTions, wrath, hatred, and revenge, it hath been already fhewn,
that great care is taken to reftrain and moderate their exorbitances,
and to engage men to exercife meeknefs, forbearance, and long-
fuffering J and above all, to cultivate that friendly temper and uni-
verfal benevolence, which is one of the moft excellent and amiable
difpofKions of the human mind (/>). As to the concupiicible and
voluptuous appetites and paflions, thefe at the time of our Saviour's
coming into the world had broken over all bounds, and had intro-
duced an univerfal corruption and dilVolutcnefs of manners. One
excellent defign, therefore, of the Chriflian law, was to mortify
and fubdue the fleflily concupifcence, and to deliver men from
tlieir bafe fervitude to the lufts of uncleannefs, which, where thcv
(/) Eph. iv. 26, 27. 31, 32. Col. iii. 12, 13, 14. 1 Cor. xiil. 4, 5.
: Nn 2 obtain
2 7<J -^ Summary of the Go/pel Morality Part 11.
obtain the dominion, difhonour and defile our nature, and are of
the moft pernicious confequence to the interefts of religion and
virtue. The Gofpel, where-ever it is finccrely believed and em-
braced, infpires the utmoft abhorrence of thofe unnatural lufts
and impurities, which had made fo monftrous a progrefs in the
moft civilized parts of the Heathen world, and which, as hath
been flaewn, were abetted and countenanced hy the maxims and
pradlices of their wife men and philofophers (7). A'll manner of
uncleannefs and lafcivioufnefs is forbidden ; not adultery only, but
fornication alfo (r), which among the Pagans paiTed for no fault
at all, or a very flight one. Polygamy and divorces upon flight
occafions, which had been greatly ' abufed among the Jews, for
gratifying their corrupt lufts, are not allowed in the religion of
Jefus. And not only are the outward grofs afts of uncleannefs
forbidden, but even the cherilhing and indulging impure and vi-
cious inclinations, which are reprefented as criminal in the flght
of God (i).
We are alfo frequently warned againfl rioting and drunkennefs,
'gluttony and intemperance, which likewife tend greatly to debafc
[q] I Cor. vi. 9, 10. I Tim. i. 9,,io. Aud thefe abominations are alfo con-
demned in the ftrongeft manner in the Old Teftament.
(r) Seewliat St. Paul faith to this purpofe, i ThefT. iv. 3, 4, 5. 7. which I iiavc
cited above, p. 155.- And whofoever impartially confiders what the fartie great
apoftle L-ith faid concerning it, i Cor..yi. from ver. 13. to vcr. 20. will fin^ '^^■^"
ral confiderations there urged, which arc of the highcfl: moment, and far fuperior
to any thing that can be found in the moft refined of the Pagan moralifts. See alfo
Prov. vi. 5 — II.
(j) Matt. V. 27, 2».
and
Chap. XIII. as delivered in the Scriptures. 277
and difhonour our nature. And what ought efpecially to be ob-
ierved, Chrift and his apoftles urge their exhortations againft the
icveral kinds of flefhly lufts which have been mentioned, not
merely from the many evil confequences they bring along with
them in this prefent ftate, but, which is of far greater force, from
the exprefs authority and command of God, from the fl:ri(5l account
we muft give of the things done in the body at the day of judg-
ment, and the terrors of the wrath to come (/). They are alfo
reprefented as peculiarly inconfiftent with the dignity and privi-
leges to which we are called by the Gofpel, and as altogether
unworthy of thofe who have the honour of being the children of
God, the members of Chrirt:, the living temples of God and
his Holy Spirit, and the heirs and expedlants of the heavenly in-
heritance («). But it is the great praifc of Chriflianity, as de-
livered in the Gofpel, that though chaflity, purity, and temper-
ance is there bound upon us by the moft facred obligations, yet
care is taken to guard againft fuperflitious extremes. Neither our
Saviour nor his apoftles, under pretence of extraordinary purity,
forbid and condemn marriage, as fome of the Eflenes then did,
and as others by a falfe refinement have fince done. On the con-
trary, it is declared, that " marriage is honourable in nil, and the
" bed undefiled (-v)." And though all intemperance and excefs
is exprefly forbidden, and we are required to keep the body under,
(0 Luke xxi. 34. Gal. v. 19. 21, Eph. v. 6. i Pet. iv. 3, 4, 5. See alfo
Prov. xxiii. i, 2, 3. 20, 21. 29 — 35. If. v. 11, 12.
(«) Rom. xiii. 12 — 14. i Cor. vl. 13. 10, 20. Eph. v. i8. i ThefT. v.
5-8.
(a.) I Ccr. vii. 9. Htb. xiii. 4.
yet
278 A Summary of the Go/pel Morality Part II.
yet we arc allowed the moderate ufe of fenfible enjoyments j and
it is declared, that every creature of God is good, and nothing to
be refufcd, if it be received with tliankfgiving, for it is fandified
by the word of God and prayer (;•)•
It is another inftance of the excellency of the Gofpel precepts,
that particular care is taken to guard us againfl: an immoderate
paflion for worldly riches. Our Saviour frequently takes occafion
to flicw the great folly of placing our confidence and happinefs in
fuch things as thefe, and reprefents in flrong terms the incon-
fiftency of a predominant love of worldly wealth with the love of
■God, and with real piety and virtue (2). The pofT.ilion and en-
joyment of riches is not abfolutely forbidden ; but we are direded
to make a proper ufe of them, and to regard them ?.? a ti uft com-
mitted to us by God, of which we are only the lie wards, and
for which we mud be accountable; we are taught to employ
them not as incentives to luxury, but as opportunities of doing
good, of honouring God, and being ufeful to mankind : and we
are affured for our encouragement, that riches fo employed will
recommend us to the divine favour, and open a way for us to
everlafling happinefs in the world to come {a).
Pride is frequently reprcfcnted In Scrip:urc as a very wrong
temper of mind, and highly dilplcafing in the fight of God {h).
(j) I Tim. jv. 3, 4, 5.
(z) Matt. vi. 24. X. 24. Luke xii. 15 — ;i. i Tim. vi. 9, 10. See alfo
Pfal. xxxvii. 16. Ixii. 10. Piov. xi. 28. xxiii. 4, 5. xxviii. :.o.
((i) Luke xvi. (>, 10. 1 Tim. vi. 17, i8, 19.
(/>) Prov. viii. 13. xvi. 5. J.im, iv. 6.
' Many
Chap. XIII. as delivered in the Scriptures. a^g
Many parages In the Gofpel are particuhirly defigned to corredl
and fubdueit in all its various branches and appearances, whether
as it lignifies an inordinate ambition which puts men uoon con-
tending who fliould be greateft, or an eager thirft after the ap-
plauie of men rather than the favour and approbation of God, or
a preftimptuous haughty arrogance, and a high conceit of our-
felves and our own righteoufnefs, and a contempt of others : never
was an amiable humility recommended and enforced in fuch an
engaging manner as by our Lord Jefus Chrift, who alfo gave the
moft-perfed: and lovely pattern of it in his own example (c).
It is the defign of feveral of our Saviour's precepts to inftruft
and ^iiredl us to poflefs our fouls in patience, equanimity, and
contentment. As nothing tends more to difcompofe and difturb
the mind than anxious cares, or exceffive forrows and defpond-
ing fears, the Goipel provides the rnoft effectual remedies againft
aH thcfe: not by reprefenting worldly evils and calamities as no
evils at all, or prefcribing an unfeeling apathy, and fupprefllng
the natural affedlions and paffions, but by keeping them within
proper bounds. No where are there fuch powierful confiderations
for fupporting us under affliclions and adverfitics with a calm re-
fignation and a lively hope. We are taught to regard them as
fen t by God for the vvifefl and bjil purpofes, and are aflured tliat
he will gracioufly fupport us under them, and over-rule them to'
our greater benefit, and that if duly improved they fhall iflue in
(f) Matt, xxiii. 6 — ii. Mark ix. 53, 34, 35. Luke xv:!i. 9 — 14. Jolm
T. 44. Matt. xi. 2y, John xiii. i:— 17. Phil. ii. 3 — 7. i Ptt. Vj 5.
J. acorn-
2 So A Summary of ihe Go/pel MoraUfy Part II.
a complete everkfting felicity [d). Nothing can poflibly be better
fiLted to deliver us from anxious diftradting cares and folicitudas,
and a diflruftful thoughtfulnefs for to-morrow, than the exxellent
precepts and direftions given us by our Saviour and his apoftles {e).
But though we are directed to call our cares upon God in a
chearful and fleady dependence upon his wife and good Provi-
dence, yet we are cautioned not to negledt the ufe of proper means
and endeavours on our parts. It is urged as our duty not to be
(lothful in bufmefs, to exercife ourfelves with diligence in the
work of our feveral callings and employments, that we may have
lack of nothing, and may have to give to him that needeth.
Thole who lead idle lives are reprefented as walking diforderly,
and it is declared, that if any man will not work, neither fliould
he eat (/). To this it may be added that our Saviour's precepts
and inftrudtions are admirably fitted to infpire us with a true di-
\'ine fortitude, and to raife us above the flaviHi fear of men, who
an only kill the body, and after that have no more that they can
do, or of any worldly evils and fufterings. And yet he is far from
encouraging a forward enthufiaflic raflinefs : he diredleth his dif-
ciples not needlefsly to expofe themfelves to dangers, but to take
all proper precautions for avoiding the rage and malice of their
perfecutors {g) : but when this could not be done, without be-
{d) Matt. V. 4. Rom. v. 4, 5. viii. iS. :8. 2 Cor. iv. 17. Hcb. xii.
5 — 12. PHil. Iv. 22. Pfal. ciii. 9, 10. 13, 14. Lam. iii. 31, 32, 33.
{,e) Matt. vi. 25 — 34. Luke xii. 22 — 31. Phil. iv. 6. 11, 12. i Tim. vi,
6. 8. Hcb. xiii. 5. 1 Pet. v. 7.
{./") Rom. xii. i r. Eph. iv. 28. i The/T. iv. 11, 12. 2 Thcff. ili. 10, ii, 12.
{g) Matt, vii.6. .X. 16. 23.
travins
Chap. XIII. as delivered In the Scriptures. 28 r
traying the caufe of God, of truth and righteoufnefs, they were
to exert a noble fortitude, and to endure the greatefl: fufFerings
jvith conftancy and even with joy, being aflured of divine fupports,
and that great fliould be their reward in heaven {h).
As knowledge is one of the nobleft improvements of the mind,
and of mighty advantage to a hfe of piety and virtue, it is fre-
quently urged upon us as our duty, to endeavour to get our minds
furnifhed with divine and ufeful knowledge. And the know-
ledge there required is not merely of the fpeculative notional
kind or fcience falfely fo called, but fuch a knowledge of thofe
things which are of the highcfl importance to our happinefs, as
may help us to make a progrefs in all holinefs and goodnefs j we
muft endeavour to grow in wifdoni and fpiritual underftanding,
fo as to difcern the things which are excellent, and to prove what
is that good, and acceptable, and perfed: will of God (/).
It is proper farther to obferve, that, as the foundation of all the
virtues which have been mentioned, and of the right ordering of
ourfelves, we are directed to endeavour to get our hearts purified.
Our Saviour reprefents the heart as the fountain, from whence
good or evil thoughts, words, and atSlions flow. And therefore
one principal part of the work required of us is to exercife a
proper dilcipline over the heart, and to maintain a conflant
{h) Matt. V. 10, 11, 12. Luke xii. 4, 5. iPct.iii. 14. iv. 12, 13.
(0 John xvii. 3. Phil. i. 9, lo. Rom. xii. 2. Eph. v. 17. Col. i. 9, 10,
rhcir. V. 21. Tit. i. I. Prov. ii. 3, 4, 5.
Vol. II. O o watch,
2 8 1 A ^umir.ary of the Gdjpel Mdraliiv '-Part IF.
watch, not only over oui-butward condacSl' and"dcportment',"^ut
over our inv/ard "frame arid 'tei^'p^/i'' ^'emxsft not take up wita
any thing (hort of a real univcrfal {x:rity and fandi'ity of fckil, that
truth in the inward parts, that fimplicity and"godly fmctritv; free
from, all hypocrify and guile, without which the moft pompous
external fervices are of no avail in tlie fight of God ('i^)'. Finally,
it is required of us, that we make it our continual endelivour to
grow in grace, and in every divine virtue. And in order to this
we muft live and walk by faith, " which is the fubftiarice of
" things hoped for, and the evidence of things not Teen." And
as that future life and immortality is how brought into the moft
clear and open light, we are required to cari'y our defires and viewis
beyond thistranfitory world, and all its idnjoym'entk," and to feck the
things which are above, and place our cholceft affc<flions there (7).
Accordingly the Chriftian life is reprefented under the noble no-
tion of a converfation with heaven, and communion with the
Father, and with his fon Jefus Chrifl : it is a continual afpiring
tov/ards the perfedlion of our nature in a conformity to the divine
goodnefs and purity, and an endeavour to do the will of God on
earth, as it is done in heaven (/;;).
To all which may be added, that it is the diflinguifliing cha-
radler of the religion of Jefus, that at the fame time that it di-
(/>•) Prov. iv. 23. Matt, xxiii. 26. 2 Cor. i. 12. Eph. iv. 21 — 24. i Ptt.
ii. I, 2. Joha iii. 3. 6. 2 Cor. v. 17. Rom. ii. 28, 29. Gal. ri. i j.
(/) 2 Cor. V. 17. Col iii. i, 2. Hcb. xiii. 14.
{in) Phil. iii. 20. i John i. 3. Phil. iii. 12, 13, 14.
rcdtctli
Chap. XIII. aiddhcred in the Scriptures. 2:3
redleth us to lifpire to the higheft degree cf moral excellence, it
teacJieth us to maintain a conflant fcnlc of our own weaknefTes
and defedls, and of our infufficicncy in ourfclves. In the Gofpel
all bbafting and confidence in our own righteoufnefs and merits is
excluded : and we are inftrudled to place our whole dependence
upon the grace of God in Jcfus Chrift our Lord, giving him the
glory of every good thing tliat is in us, or which we are enabled
to perform. .
Upon tliis general view of the Gofpel precepts, it appears that
they are of a moft excellent nature and tendency : they exhibit a
beautiful harmonious fcheme of pradlical religion. The befc
fyftcms of the moft celebrated Pagan moralifts are in feveral re-
fpeds deficient, and in fome very wrong ; but here there is no-
thing deficient, our whole duty is fct before us in its juft extent,
without- the leaft mixture of any thing that is wrong. But though
it fets before us the nobleft idea of moral excellence, it does not
carry it to any unwarrantable extremes, or to a degree of ftricl-
nefs unfuitable to the human nature : which is an objcdion that
fome have made againfl it. We are indeed there taught to deny
curfelves, but the intention is only that we fliould endeavour to
keep the inferior appetites and paffions in a due fubjeftion to the
nobler part of our natures, and that the pleafurcs and interefts of
the flelli and of the world fliouli be made to give way to the
duty we. owe to God, and to the love of truth, virtue, and righ-
teoufnefs, whenever they happen to ftand in competition ; in
which cafe our temporary fclf-denial (hall be crowned with tlie
O o 2 moft
2S4. A Summary of the Gof pel Morality P.u-t 11.
mofl: glorious rewards. We are required not to make provifion
for the flcfh to fulfil the lufts thereof; but neither our Saviour
nor his apolllcs have urged it upon us as a duty to macerate our
bodies with thofe unnatural and exceflive rigors and aufterities,
or to chaftife them with that bloody difcipline, which fuperfti-
tion hath often enjoined under pretence of extraordinary mortifi-
cation and devotion. We are to be heavenly-minded, and to fet
our affedions upon the things which are above, yet fo as not to
negle(5t the duties and offices incumbent upon us in this prefent
fi:ate. We are not commanded abfolutely to quit the world j
but, which is a much nobler attainment, to live above the world
whilfl; we are in it, and to keep ourfelves free from its pollutions •
not wholly to renounce our prefent enjoyments, but to be mo-
derate in the ufe of them, and fo " to ufe this world as not to
" abufe it." Finally, the Gofpel Morality takes in all that is in-
cluded in that comprehenfive precept, " whatfoevcr things are
" true, whatfoever things are venerable, o-f/^ra, whatfoever things
" are jult, whatfoever things are pure, whatfoever things are
" lovely, whatfoever things are of good report, if there beany
*' virtue, and if there be any praife, think on thefe things.'"'
Phil. iv. 8.
But let a rule of moral duty be never fo complete and excellent
in itfelf, it will hardly be fufficient to anfwer the end in the pre-
fent ftate of mankind, unlefs it be bound upon us by a proper
authority, and enforced by the mofl: powerful motives. And in
this the religious and moral precepts of the Gofpel have a vaft
advantage
Chap. XIII. as delhetied hi the Scriptures, 285
advantage («). They are not to be regarded as the mere counfels
and didutes of wife men and moralifts, who can only advlfe and
endeavour to perfuade, but cannot pretend to a proper authority
over mankind ; nor as the injundions of fallible human legiflators
armed with civil authority, who cannot pretend to judge of the
heart, or of mens inward difpofitions, and who have nothing far-
ther in view than the external order and welfare of fociety, and
frequently make the rules of morality give way to their political
interefls ; but they are urged upon us as the command of God
himfelf, the fovereign Lord of the univcrfe, who knoweth our
mofl fecret thoughts, and to whom we muft give an account, not
only of our outward aclions, but of the inward aftedions and dif-
pofitions of our fouls.
Another great advantage is, that our Lord Jefus Chrift, who
was fent into the world to publifli thefe excellent laws of God
to mankind, and hath given us the moft illuflrious proofs of his
divine miffion, hath himfelf exemplified thofe laws and precepts
to us in his own facred life and pradice. Examples have ufually
a greater force than bare precepts. And what example fo proper
and engaging as that of the Son of God in human flefli, the moft
perfed image of the invifible Deity, in whom the divine perfec-
tions are brought nearer to our view, and within the reach of our
imitation ? In him we may behold a moft complete pattern of
(n) Lord Bolingbroke himfelf feems to acknowledge, that the Chriftian Reve-
lation may be of ufe to enforce the praifticc of morality by a fupcrior authority. Sec
his works, Vol, V. p. 294. edit. 410.
z univerfal
2 8(5 fte Gofpl Morality hf erred by tie Part IT.
univerfal holinefs and fpotlefs purity, of the mod ardent love to
God, the moft wonderful love to mankind, the moft perfeifl
obedience and refignation to the divine will, the moft exemplary
patience under the greateft fufferings, the moft admirable humility,
meeknefs, and condefceniion, and of every amiable virtue. And
fhould not we be defirous to tread in his illuftrious footfteps ?
and to live and aft as fo glorious and divine a perfon, to whom
wc are under fuch infinite obligations, lived and afted before us ?
It tends farther to recommend and enfoixe the precepts of the
Gofpel, that all the charms of the divine grace and goodnefs are
here opened to our view. Motives to obedience drawn from
love are fitted to work upon the beft principles of our nature.
And never was there fuch a difplay of the wonderful love of God
to mankind as in the methods of our redemption and falvation by
Jefus Chrift-. Where this myftery of godlinefs is heartily received
with a true and living faith, it will have a happy influence to en-
gage and draw us to a holy and dutiful obedience: fince it is
every where inculcated in the gofpel that the defign of God's
fending his own Son into the world, and of all the great things
which have been done for us, is to oblige us to die more and
more unto fin, and to live unto rightcoufnefs.
The excellent privileges of the Gofpel do alfj, as was before
hinted, furnifli very powerful motives to a holy and virtuous
pradice. For this purpbfe we are called to be faints, honoured
to be the members of Chrift's church and kingdom, t!ie children
of
Chap. XIII. bighejl Authority aiid the niofi poii^crful Mctives. 2 S7
of God, and heirs of the heavenly inheritance, that we may be a
people zealous of good works, fliewing forth the praifes and vir-
tues of him that hath called us out of darknefs into his mar-
vellous light.
To all which may be added the importar.t motives drawn from-
the rewards and punilhmcnts of a future ftate, of wiiich the Gofpel
exhibits far clearer difcoveries, and gives fuller afllirances, than
were ever given to the world before, as will be f]:iewn in the fol-
lowing part of this work.
Finally, for our greater encouragement, divine affiftances arc
provided for us. This is a confideration of great moment, as every
one muft acknowledge that has a due fenfe of the weaknefs and
corruption of the human nature in its prefent ftate, and the mani-
fold temptations to which we are here expofed. We are not left
merely to our own unalTifted ftrength, but have the moft exprefs
promifcs and afluranccs given us in the Gofpel, that God will fend
his Holy Spirit to enlighten and fandiify us, to ftrengthen and.
aflift us in the performance of our duty, if from a fenfe of our
own infufficiency in ourfelves we humbly apply to him for his
gracious affiilanccs, and at the fame time are diligent in the uib
of all proper means and endeavours on our parts. For it muft be
confidered, that thofe divine influences and aids arc communicated
in fuch a way as is agreeable to the juft order of our rational facul-
ties, and not fo as to render our own endeavours needlefs, but to
affiil and animate our endeavours.
Upon
2S8 The Excellency of the Gofpel'Morals an Argument of Part II.
Upon the whole, confidering the great darknefs and corruption
into which mankind had fallen, nothing was more wanted,
than to have a pure fyilem of morals, containing the whole of
our duty in its juft extent, delivered in plain and exprefs precepts,
as the laws of God himfelf, enforced by all the fandlions of a di-
vine authority, and by all the charms of the divine lo^'e and good-
nefs} and this is fully done by the Gofpel of Jefus.
It is a natural inference from what hath been offered on this
fubjecft, that the admirable purity of the Gofpel morals, and the
uniform tendency of the Chriftian doftrines, precepts, privileges,
and ordinances, to promote real holinefs of heart and life, fur-
nilheth a very convincing proof of the divinity of the Chriftian
revelation. This is an argument that ftrikcs the mind with great
force, and which ought mightily to recommend it to the efteem
and veneration of mankind, efpecially of all the impartial lovers
of truth and virtue. The firfl: publifliers of it were men of great
fimplicity, plainnefs and integrity, deilitute of all worldly advan-
tages, and the rcmoteft that can be fuppofed from the charadler
of artful impoftors. Animated by a pure and fervent and well
regulated zeal for the glory of God and the falvation of men, they
expofcd themfclves to the grcateft fuffcrings, reproaches, and per-
fccutions, to eftablilh a fchcme of religion, the delign of which
was to promote the praftice of univerfal righteoufnefs : a godlike
purity lluncs through the whole of it : there is nothing in it to
footh and flatter the lufts and vices of men, nothing that breathes
the fpiritof this world, of ambition, avarice, and fcnfuality. And
as
Chap. XIII. the Divinity of the Chrijlian Revelation. iSp
as little can the Gofpel be fiippofed to be the work of weak hot-
brained enthufiafts, as of artful felf-defigning impoftors. When
we confider that the firft publlfliers of Chriflianity were for the
moft part men of no learning and education, and yet taught men
to form the moft juft and fublime notions of religion, contrary in
feveral inftances to the prejudices which they themfelves had
deeply imbibed, and far exceeding what the world had known
before, and that they alfo advanced the moft perfedl fcheme of
morals, vaftly fuperior to v/hat had been taught by the moft ad-
mired philofophers of the Pagan world, men of the greateft parts
and genius, and even by the moft celebrated Jewifli dodors, who
had by their corrupt gloffes depraved the true fenfe of the law
and prophets, this is a ftrong confirmation of the truth of their
pretenfions ; that the dodlrines they taught, and the precepts they
delivered in the name of God, were not of their own inven-
tion, a thing of which they were evidently incapable, but were, as
they themfelves profeffcd, of a divine original. This was far-
ther confirmed by the many glorious atteftations given from hea-
ven to the divine milTion of our Saviour, and of thofe that were
fent to publifh the Gofpel in his name. Never were there any
fafts better attefted, or which exhibited more illuftrious proofs of
an extraordinary divine interpofition. They manifeftly tranfccnd-
ed all human power; and therefore muft have been wrou^^ht
either immediately by the power of God himfelf, or of good
beings fuperior to mankind, ading under his direction, and v\
would never have given their attcftation to an impofture. A:
to evil beings, whatever we fuppofc their power to be, it cai.
Vol II. P p
i(;o 7he Excelkncy of thi Gajpel Morals aii Argument of Part IT.
ho imagined that they woukl lend their afliftance to give credit to
a fchenic of rcHgioa and morals, the plain tendency of which
was to turn uiea from idolatry, vice, and wickednefs, to the know-
ledge, obedience, and adoration of the only true God, and to the
uradlice of piety ajid virtue. So convincing was the evidence of
thcfc proofs, that the religion of Jefus foon made an amazing
orogrefs, notwithftanding the obftacles and oppofition it met
with, which, humanly fpeaking, it feemed impofliblc to over-
come. And wherever it was really believed and embraced, h
wrought a wonderful and happy cliange. Never was there a
body of men in the v/orld, io. holy and virtuous, of fuch exem-
plary piety, charity, purity, and temperance, as the primitive.
Chriftians. And accordingly one of the topics, which the an-
cient apologifts for Chriftianity conftantly infifted upon, and for
the truth of which they appealed to the Heathens therafelves,
was the remarkable reformation it wrought in the lives and man-
ners of thofe that embraced it. They flione as lights in the world
in the midft of a vicious and corrupt generation. And fo they
continued whillT: tbey kept clofe to the religion and morality laid
down in the Holy Scriptures. And in proportion as they deviated
froni that perfedl rule, they cither became loofe in their pradices,
■and fell from their primitve virtue, or under pretence of extra-
ordinary purity above what the Gofpel req.uired, ran into- the ex-
tremes of fuperftition. So wife, fo admirable, fo juftly tempered
is the Gofpel fcheme of morality, as delivered by Chrift and his
apoftles, that all the attempts of after ages to raife it to a higher
degree of excellency, really fell fliort of its original perfedtion.
It
Chap. XIII. the Divinity of the Chrijlian Revelation. t^\
It muft be acknowledged, indeed, and has been often objedted
by die enemies of the Gofpel Revelation, that there is a great cor-
ruption of manners among Chriftians. But this does not prove either
that Chriftianity was not a fignal advantage to the world when it
was firft publiflied, or that it is not now of great ufe and benefit,
and what we ought to be highly thankful for. The befl infti-
tutions in the world may be abufed ; and the guilt of thofe who
go on in a courfe of vice and wickednefs, in oppofition to the
dear light and laws of the Gofpel, admits of peculiar aggravations.
If there are many profcfled Chriftians, who live immoral and dif-
folute lives, they are generally fuch as either content themfelves
with the bare name of Chriftians, without taking any pains to get
a juft acquaintance with the religion they profefs, or who do not
allow themfelves fcrioufly to confider and lay to heart its dodrines
and precepts, or who do not really believe it, or at leaft yield but
a doubtful and wavering aflent to it. And this is often very much
owing to the purity of the Gofpel morals, which creates prejudices
againft it in the minds of thofe who are under the power of evil
habits and vicious affeiStions. The infidelity and fcepticifm of
many in the prcfent agt and the growing indifterency to all re-
ligion, which is too vilible among us, is, I doubt not, one great
caufe of that abounding diflblutenefs and corruption, which is fo
much complained of. But ftill it is certainly true, that if the
reftraints which the Chriftian religion lays upon vice and wicked-
nefs were removed, the corruption would be much greater and
more general than it is. Many thoufands, who would otherwife
be vicious and diflblutc, are influenced by the dodrines and prc-
Pp 2 ccpts
2 r 2 The Excelkncy of the Go/pel Morals an Argument of Part 11.
<:epts of IsDhriftianky to lead fober, righteous, and godly lives.
And riotv'vikiitlandkig the degeneracy of ChriAians, there is jufl
reafon to conclude, that there are iacoijiparably more and greater
inftanccs of a kiblime and rational piety, and an exemplary purity
of manners among thofe that profefs to believe and receive the
Gofpel, than arc to be found among thofe of any other profellion
or charader. The moft cfFcdlual way, therefore, of recovering
men to the practice of real piety and virtue, is to endeavour to
engage them to a clofc adherence to the heavenly dodlrincs, and
the pure and excellent laws of the Gofpel, which undeniably gives
the heft and greateft helps and encouragements to a holy and vir-
tuous hfe. And it is an advantage which calls for our higheft
thankfulnefs, that whatever corruptions in dodrine and pradlice
profeffed Chriilians have fallen into, or may fall into, we have
Hill a perfcd: rule or flandard laid down in the Holy Scriptures,
to which we may have recourfc, and by a clofe attention to which,
we may have fure direftions given us as to every part of religion,
and the praftice of univerfal piety and righteoufnefs.
I {hall conclude this part of the fubje(ll with the fultrage of two-
learned and ingenious gentlemen, who are generally thought not
to have been much inclined to fuperftition and bigotry. The one
is the author of the Lettres Juives, who, in the perfon of a Jew, ac-
knowledges, that " the firfl Nazarene dodors prefcribed a doc-
" trine fo conformable to equity, and io uleful to fociety, that
" their greateft adverfaries now agree, that their moral precepts
7 " are
Chap. XIII. the Dhifn'/y of the Chrifttan ReijeJation. ^93
" are infinitely fuperior to the wifeft philofophers of antiquity (0)."
The other is the juftiy admired Monf. de'Montcfquieii. We are
informed by good authority, that he declared with his dying
breath, to thofe that flood around him, and particularly to the
Duchefs D'Aiguillon, That " the morality of the Gofpel is a moft
" excellent thing, and the moll: valuable prefcnt which could
•' pofiibly have been received by man from his Creator (/>)•"
(0) " Les premiers doifleurs Nazarenes ont preche une doflrlne fi conforme a
" I'cquite, et fi utile a la focicte, que leurs plus grands adverf.iires convicnnent
" aujourdue, que leurs precepts moraux font infiniment au deffus des plus ftges
*' philofophes de I'antiquite." Lettres Juives, Icttre 142.
{p) See L'EIoge de Moafieur de Moniefquieu, par Monf. dc ^laupertuls, Ham-
burgh 1755.
The End of Part IL
T 1] E
.1 ; . ^93
THE
ADVANTAGE and NECESSITY
OF THE
CHRISTIAN REVELATION,
SHEWNFROMTHE
State of Religion in the Heathen World.
PART III.
With refped: to the BeHef of a Future State of
Rewards and Puniiliments.
CHAP, I.
Ti>e importance of the doBrine of a future fl ate. It is agreeable to
right reafon. The natural and moral arguments for a future
(late of great weight. Tet not fa evident ^ but that if men "were
left
o.<)6 Importance of the DoFi tine Part III.
Itfi merely to their own unajfifted reafon, they would he apt to
labour under great doubt and dijiculties. A Revelation from
God concerning it would be cj great ad'vantage.
IT is a point of vaft confequence to religion, and to the caufe
of virtue in the world, whether there be life to come, in
which men fliall be rev. arded or puniflicd, according to
their behaviour in this prefent {late ; or whether this prefcnt life
be the whole of our exigence, beyond which there is nothing to
be hoped for or feared, in a way of retribution for our prefent
moral condu^Tt.
If there were no future ftate of retribution, or men generally be-
lieved there were none, they would look no farther than the pains
and pleafures of this prefent life : it could not ordinarily be cx-
pefted that they fliould have any thing in view, but the gratifying
their appetites and inclinations, and promoting what they appre-
hend to be their prefent worldly intcrcft, to which every other
confideration mufl; be fubordinate : flcfli and fcnfe would be tlieir
governing principles : good men would be deprived of thofe hopes
which are a fource of joy and comfort to them in their greatcft
afflidions and diftrefles, and which tend to animate them to a
patient continuance in well-doing: and bad men would be freed
from thofe terrors, than which nothing can be better fitted to put
a flop to the exorbitancies of their evil courfes, and to avert them
even from fccret adls of wickednefs. Accordingly, it has been
ahvays accounted a principal advantage of the Chrillian Revela-
tion,
Chap. I. of a future State. 2.517
fion, that it gives us the ftrongeft aflurances of a future ftate, and
of the rewards and punifliments of the hfe to come. The ablefl
patrons of Natural ReHgion, as oppofeJ to Revelation, have been
fenfiblc of tliis, and therefore have pretended that the do<5lrine
of the immortahty of the foul, and a ftiite of future retributions,
is fo obvious to the common reafon of all mankind, that there
needs no extraordinary revelation, either to difcover it to us, or
flrengthen our belief of it. And yet there is too much reafon to
think, that they have aflerted this rr^ther with a view to depre-
ciate the ufe and need of Divine Revelation, than that they really
believed that dodlrine j fince at other times they have thrown out
fufpicions againfl it, and reprefented it as a matter of uncertainty >
and fome of them have ufed their utmoft efforts to invalidate the
proofs which are brought for it.
I readily acknowledge, that the natural and moral arguments
for the immortality of the foul, and a future flate of retributions,
are, when duly confidercd, of great weight. And none have fet
thefe proofs in a flronger light than the Chriftian philofophers and
divines. Whofoever impartially confiders their manner of treating
this fubie(3:, will find it vaftly fuperior to that which was made
ufe of by the mod eminent Pagan philofophers who lived before
the coming of our Saviour. In this, as well as other inftances,
Revelation has been of great advantage for affifting and improving
our reafon in matters of the highell importance. It has been
fliewn, with great flrength and clearnefs of argument, that mat-
ter, as far as we can judge of it from its known effential proper-
VoL. II. Q_q tiesj
2 o3 Niiturjl nnd moral Jrgumen'.s in Proof Part III.
ties, is in its ownnature incapable of thought, however diverfified
or modified : that a fubftance compounded of innumerable parts,
as all own matter to be, cannot be the fubjeft of an individual
confcioufnefs, the feat of which mufb be a fimple and undivided
fubftance [a) : that intcUeft and will are of a quite different na-
ture from corporeal figure and motion ; and the fublime faculties
and operations of the human foul, its power of rifing above ma-
terial and temporal objedls, and contemplating things fpiritual and
invifible, coeleftial and eternal, appear to.be the properties of a
fubftance of a far nobler and higher kind than this corruptible
flefli : and that therefore there is no reafon to think it will die witli
the body ; but that being of a quite different nature, effcntlally
a6Hve, fimple, and indivifible> it is defigned by the Creator, who
made it ^o, for an immortal exiftence. To this may be added the
ftrong apprehenfions of a future ftate, fo natural to the human
mind, and which are not to be found in any of the inferior ani-
mals : and that men alone of all the creatures in this lower world
are capable of being governed by the hopes and fears of the world
to come. This yields a reafonable prefumption, that the Author
of their frame defigned they fliould be fo governed : and it is fcarce
confiftent with the beft ideas we can form of the Divine Wifdom
and Goodnefs, to fuppofe that he defigned and formed them to be
governed by a lie. It ftrengthens this, when we confider, that it
(.z) This is very well nrgucd by the IcirotJ Dr. Samuel Clarke, in his Letter to
Mr. Dodwell, and his fevcr.il defences of it againrt aa acute and ingenious ndveifary.
Mo^- have \ ever feen a futfitient aufwer to that book.
2 feems
Chap. I. of a future State, - 25)^
feems abfurd to imagine that fo noble a creature as man, endued
with fuch admirable faculties, by which he is capable of making
immortal proficiencies in knowledge and virtue, fhould be defigned
for no other life than this fliort and tranfitory exiftence, in whicli
he is incapable of arriving at the true perfedlon and felicity of his
nature. Thefe reafonings receive a mighty additional force from
the moral arguments for a ftate of future retributions, drawn from
the prefent feemingly unequal difpenfations of Divine Providence ;
the many evils and fufferings to which the bed and worthieft of
men are often expofed in this prefent ftate; and the profperous
condition of bad and wicked men, many of whom have continued
in flourifliing and fplendid circumftances to the end of their lives.
From thefe and feveral other confiderations which might be men-
tioned, it feems reafonable to conclude, that this is not the only
hfe man is defigned for, and that there is a ftate before us, in
which good men Hiall be amply rewarded, and the wicked
punifhed : and even thofe fecret good or evil anions and difpo-
litions which did not come under the cognizance of earthly tri--
bunals, (ball be brought into judgment, and meet with a fuitable
recompence from the fupreme and moft righteous Lord and Go-
vernor of the world. Thefe things carry a great deal of proba-
bility to ferious and contemplative minds, and fticw that what is
revealed to us in the Gofpel on this fubjeft is I'uited to the beft
notions we can form of the nature of man, and the wifdom and
righteoufnefs of the divine adminiftrations.
Q^q a But
300 Revelation makes the mojl certain Dlfcovery Part III.
But yet It mufl be acknowledged, that there are objedions and
difficulties brought on the other lide, which, if men were left
merely to themfelves, and to their own unaflifted reafon, might
be apt to raife doubts in their minds, and very much weaken
their belief of this great truth. The metaphyfical arguments
drawn from the different nature of body and fpirit, however
iult in themfelves, are only fitted to make impreflions on a few
perfons of philofophical minds, and who have been accuftomed
to abflradled fpeculation?, but carry no great light of evidence and
convidion to the generality of mankind ; who, having from their
birth been wholly converfant with fenfiblc and material objefls,
cannot eafily form a notion of a fpiritual being diftindt from mat-
ter. After the enquiries and difquilitions of men of the greateft
genius and ability in all ages, we yet know very little of the
nature and eflence of our own fouls, of the origin of our ideas,
and the proper difference between body and fpirit, and what in-
fluence the one of them may have upon the other. Experience
convinces us of the intimate connedlion and clofe union there is
between our bodies and fouls in this prcfent ftate : and that the
exercife of our faculties, and the operations of our fouls, very
much depend upon the due difpofition of the bodily organs. To
which it may be added, that the foul often feems to decay with
the body, and to outward appearance is extinguilhed with it.
Even thofe who moft firmly believe the foul's immortality, find
it very difficult to form a diftlnd conception how it exills and
operates when feparated from the body. The world to come is
hidden from our view : it is not the objed of any of our fenfes :
it
Chap. I. ofafutureSiaie. 301
it is a flate which we are wholly unacquainted with, and of
which, if left merely to ourfelves, we are fcarce capable of form-
ing a clear and fatisfadtory idea ; and therefore is the proper objcd:
of a Divine Revelation, and of the exercife of that faith " which
" is the evidence of things not feen." And as the foul of man
does not exifl independently by an abfolute neceflity of nature,
but depends for the continuation of its exiflence upon the will of
God, we can be no farther fure of its immortal duration, than we
are fure that it is the will of God that it fliould be fo : and though
this may be probably gathered from feveral confiderations, yet
nothing could give us fo full an afllirance of it, as a Revelation
from God, containing an exprefs difcovery of his will concerning
it. The moral arguments for a future ftate are indeed of great
force ; yet it muft be owned, that there are fuch fecrcts and depths
of Providence, which we are not able to account for ; we have
fuch narrow views of things, and know io little of the divine
counfels, and of the rcafons and ends of the divine adminiftrations,
and what meafures it may pleafe Infinite Wifdom to take in the
government of the world, that there may ilill be room for doubts
and uncertainties in a ferious and thoughtful mind, which no-
thing lefs than the light of Divine Revelation can eftedlually
difpcl.
But the furcfl way of judging of what may be expeded from
human unalTifled reafon, with refpe(5l to the immortality of the
foul and a future flate, is to conlider what men of the greatefl
abilities in the Pagan world, and who feem to have been capable
of
50 a Re^oelation makes the mojl certain D'lfcovery, £fc. Part III.
of carrying rcafon to its Iwghefl improvement, have faid and
thought upon it. This was for many ages the fubjedt of their
phiiofophical enquiries, and which was debated among them
with all the ftrength of argument they were mafters of. And
how far they fucceeded in their enquiries, will appear from the
following treatife.
CHAP.
Chap. II. The Belief of the ImmorfuUfy of the Soul, <3l
CHAP. XL
Some notions of the immortality of the foul mid a future fate ob-
tained among mankind from the moft an! lent times^ and fprcad
very generally thrOligh the nations. Ibis was ?iot originally the
eJf'cSl of human reafon and phllofopby, nor ivas it merely the in-
vention of legifators for political purpofes : but was derived to
tbem by a mojl anticnt tradition from the earlieji ages, and ivas
probably a part of the primitive religion communicated by Divine
Revelation to the firf of the human race.
BEFORE we enter upon an examination of the fentiments
of philofophers on this fubjeft, it is proper to obferve, that
the belief of the immortality of the foul and a future ftate ob-
tained among mankind in the earliefl: ages : of which we have all
the proof that a matter of this nature is capable of. This is ac-
knowledged by fome who are otherwife no great friends to that
do&ine. Lord Bolingbroke owns, That " the dodtrine of the
" immortality of the foul, and a future ftate of rewards and pu-
*' nifliments, began to be taught before we have any light into
*J antiquity. And when we begin to have any, we find it efta-
" blidied : that it was ftrongly inculcated from times immemo-
" rial, and as early as the moft antient and learned nations appear
" to us {b)r And we find it equally obtained among the moft
barbarous as among the moft civilized nations. The antient
(b) Bolingbrokc'3 Works, Vol. V. p. 237. edit. 4to. '
Scvthians,
:;o4 'The BelieJ of the InmorlaUh of the Soul and a Part III.
Scythians, Indians, Gauls, Germans, Britons, as well as the
Greeks and Romans, believed that fouls are immortal, and that
men fliall live in another rtate after death, though it muft be
confeHed their ideas of it were very obfcurc (c). There were
fcarce any of the American nations, when the Europeans firfi:
came among them, but had fome notion of*it..
It is obierved by a celebrated writer, that the moft antient
Greek poets, who reprefent the manners and cuftoms of their
own and other nations, flill fpeak of this as their popular opinion
and belief [d). Tim;tus the Pythagorean commends the Ionian
poet [Homer] for the account he gives from antient tradition of
future punirtiments [e) : and if this was an antient tradition in
Plomer's time, it muft have been of very great antiquity. Socra-
tes, as reprefented by Plato, endeavoured to prove the immortality
of the foul in a way of reafon and argunxent, but he never pre-
tended to be the firft inventor of this doftrine, or to have himfelf
found it out merely by his own enquiries, but frequently fpeaks of
it as a moft antient and venerable tradition. Thus in the Phacdo
Socrates faith, " I am in good hope, that there is fomething re-
" maining for thofe that are dead ; and that, as hath been faid of
" old, [^(T'c^ y'i ^ TTotAaj ?JyeTai] it is much better for good than
" for bad men (/)." Plato in this agreed with his great mafter.
(f) Grotius de Verit. Rclig. Chrifl. lib. i. fcifl. 22.
(./) Divine Legation of Mofes, Vol. I. book ii. fcifl. i. p. 90. 41!) edir.
{e) See his trcatife of the Soul of the World, at the latter end.
(/) Platon. Opera, p. 387. A. edit. Lugd.
la
Chap. II. future State of great Antion'.ty among the Nations. 3 05
In his feventh epiftle written to Dion's friends and relations, he fay;--,
*' That we ought always to beUeve the antient and facred words,"
[which plainly points to fome traditions of great antiquity, and
fuppofed to be of divine original] '' which (liew both that the
** foul is immortal, and that it hath judges, and fufters the greatcft
" punifliments, when it is difengaged from the body {g)" From
whence he concludes, that it is a lefs evil to fuffer the greateft
adls of injufticc than to do them. Ariftotle, as cited by Plutarch,
fpeaking of the happinefs of men after their departure out of this
life, reprefents it as a mofl: antient opinion, fo old that no man
knows when it began, or who was the author of it, that it iiath
been handed dov/n to us by tradition from infinite ages (i6). Cicero
fpeaking of the immortality of the foul, fuppofes it to have been
held " by thofe of the befl authority, which in every cafe is and
" ought to be of great weight: and that all the anticnts agreed in
" it, who were the more worthy of credit, and the more likely
" to know the truth, the nearer they approached to the firft rife of
*' mankind, and to their divine original (/)." He alfo obferves,
that " the antients believed it, before they became acquainted
" with natural philofophy, which was not cultivated till many
*' years afterwards: and that they were perfuadcd of things by a
(,?) Piston. Opera, p. 716. A. Wt'ihta^M ?£ stwj mu yj^ toT; ira'Kaloti xou irpoij
^oyoiJi 01 Irt unvino-tv hpuv km a^avsclov ^ux.w fZvai, hicixYa; te iir^siv, kcu -rimv Ta; /ke-
{/}) Plutarch, in Corifol. aJ .\polb;i. Oper. torn. II. p. 115. C. edit. Xyl.
(1) " Autoribus quidem ad iftam fententlam uti optumis poirumus quod in oin-
" nibus caufis, ct debet ct folet v.ilcre plurimum : el prinium qnidein oDini anti-
" quitate, quae quo propius aberat ab ortu ct divina piogenie, hoc melius ea for-
*' t-ifTe qux erant vera ccrnebat." Tufi;ul. Difput. lib. i. cap. n.
Vol. II. Rr «' kind
3o6 The Belief of the Immoriality cf the Soul and a Part III.
" kind of natural admonition, without enquiring into the reafons
" and caufes of them [li)." He afterwards argues from the con-
fent of all nations concerning it. " Permanerc animosarbitramur
«' confcnfu nationuni omnium (/)." And Seneca in his 1 17th
epiftle repreftrnts this univcrful confent as of no fmall moment in
this argument
Plutarch in his Gonfolation to ApoUonius, not only approver
tlie pafliige of Ariftotle produced above concerning the great an-
tiquity of this tradition, but reprefents it as an opinion dclivei-ed
by the moft anticnt poets and philofophers [0 twc traAawj' is
•jTsoiTwj' y.x\ (piXoao(pMy As^^js] that fome kind of honour and dig-
nity fliall be conferred upon excellent perfons, after their depar-
ture out of this life ; and that there is a certain region appointed,
in which the fuuls of fueh perfons refide (w). The fame eminent
philofopher in his confolatory letter to his wife on the death of
thwir little child, fuppofes that the fouls of infants pafs after deatn"
into a better and more divine flate. And tliat this is what may
be gathered from their antient laws and culloms derived by tra-
dition from their anccftors (//)..
{k) " Qni nondum ea quos multis pofl annis traftari cepiflent phyfica didl-
" ciHent, tantum fibi perfuafcrant, quantum naturj ndmoneiite cognoverant, ra-
" tiones etcaufas rerum non tenebaat." Tufcul. Difput. lib. i. cap. 13.
(/) Ibid. cap. 16.
(•«) Plutarch, ubi fiiprn. p. 1:0. B.
{n) Plutarch. Oper. Dm. II. p. 612.
I ihu)k
Chap. II. future State of great Antiquity among the Nations. 507
I think it llifficiently appears from the feveral teftimonies which
have been produced, that the dodlrine of the immortality of the
foul and a future flate obtained very generally among mankind in
the earliefl: ages. It is true that fome have pretended to alll -n
the firrt: authors of this opinion. Cicero him fclf fays, that, as fa;-
as appears from written accounts, Pherecydes Syrius was the
firft who taught that the fouls of men are fempiternal or im-
mortal. For Cicero ufes thefe words as fynonymous. Thus he
fpeaks of the body's being buried after death in a fcmpiternal
fleep, i. e. not a fleep that never had a beginning, but which ih.iU
never liavc an end (0). " Credo equidem etiam alios tot f^culis;
" fed quod literis extet, Pherecydes Syrius primum dixit animos
" efle hominum fempiternos [p)." But it is evident that he does
not here intend to affirm, that Pherecydes was abfolutely the firll:
(0) Tufcal. Difpul. lib. i. cap. \6, The author of Le Difcours fur la Vic
lumiaine, publifiied at the end of the Peafecs Philofophiques, after having affeited,
that from the moft remote antiquit)', the entire deAnii^tion of our bcins; at death
was a doflrine believed among the philofophers, tells us, that Cicero names the
man who full took upon him to believe that the foul is immortal. But it is ni.i-
nifcft that it was not Cicero's intention to infinuate that Pherecydes was the fiill
man that ever believed the immortality of the foul. The lame conKient wiiter
adds, that " in the prefent enlightened age, it is dcmonllrated by a thoufand
" proofs, that there is only one life and one happinefs," i. e. a happincfs confined
in this prefent life. " Dans un fiecle aulTi eclaire que le notrc, il ell enfin de-
montrc par mllle preuves fans replique, qu'il n' y a qu' une vie, et qu' une feliclte."
An excellent infiancc this of the extraordinary figacity of the preftnt age : i. e. of
thofc wiio fet up fur mafttrs of rcafon in oppofition to rcvebtion. And indeed
this author plainly and without difguife pudies this fyftem of iftc mortality of
the foul, and the utter extiniftion of our cxiHence at death, to its natural confe-
qucnces, utterly fub^crfivc of all religion and morality. Sec here above p. 98. of
this volume.
(/) Tufcul. Difput. 1. i. cap. 16.
R r 2 Uiar
3 0 3 7 be Belief of lie Immortality of the Soul and a Part III.
that ever held the immortality of the foul. For he huiifelf repre-
fents it as liaving been believed from all antiquity, by thofe who
were neareft the origin of the human race. And in this very
paragraph he declares it as his own opinion, that there were others
in the fuccefllon of fo many ages who had tanglit it, though their
names are not recorded. His meaning therefore is probably this,
that though others had believed and maintained it long before,
and it ftood on the foot of ancient tradition, Pherecydes was the
firfl of the philofophers, of v/hom there was any account then
extant, who taught it to his fcholars as part of his philofophical
doftrine. Diogenes Laertius tells us, that fome affirmed that
Thaies was the lirft who faid that fouls are immortal {'j). Pau-
fanias gives the honour of it to the Chaldeans and Pcrlian Magi,
from whom he thinks the Greeks had it (r). And Lacrtius alfo
mentions it as the dodtrine of the Magi, that men fliall live again
and be immortal {s). According to Athena:us, Homer was \hz
firft who faid that the foul is immortal (/). Others name Py-
thao-oras for the author of it. Herodotus afcribes it to the Egyp-
tians («). And in this he has been followed by others. Lord
Bolingbroke, after having declared in the paflage above referred to,
tliat it began to be taught before we have any light into antiquity>
yet pretends to aflign the origin of it, and that it was invented in
{q) Laert. lib. i. ftgm. 24 >
(;■) III jMetTeniacis, cap. 32.
(j) Laert. in Prooern. fegra. 9.
{t) Dcipnof. lib. xi. p. 507.
(y) Lib- ii. cap. 122.
Egypt,
Chap. IT. future State of great Antiquh}' among the Nat Jens. 309
Egy^t, and came from thence to tlic Greeks, from whom it was'
derived to the Romans (a). All that can be juftly concluded
from thofe diiTcrent accounts is, that the author of this doftrine
was not known : that the feveral perfons which have been men-
tioned taught the immortality of the foul, but that this dodirine
was really of more antient date than any of them, and even from
times immemorial. There is therefore juft ground to coiiclude
that it was not originally the relult of philofophical difquilitions,
to which men did not much apply themfelves in thofe early ages.
Nor was it merely the invention of lawgivers for political pur-
pofes, as fome have rcprefented it. The noble author above-
mentioned exprefly afferts, that " the antient theifls, polythcifts,
" philofophers, and legiftators, invented the dodtrine of fiiture re-
" wards and punifliments, to give an additional ftrength to the
" fanclions of the law of nature (_)')." That it gives a mighty
fanclion to that law will be readily allowed ; and its great utility
this way, as the learned bifliop of Gloucefter has very properly
obferved, is no fmall argument of its truth. It has been already
hinted, that men's being capable of being governed by the hopes .
and fears of the life to come, which cannot be faid of any of the
inferior animals, feems plainly to fhewthat the author of the hu-
man frame defigned man not merely for the prefent, but for a
future flate of exiftcnce. For who would undertake Jo propofe
fuch fan(Sions to the brutes ? The wifeft of the ancient legiflator*
cncoin-aged the belief of a future ftate, as they did that of the ex-
(x) BolJngbroke's Works, Vol. V. p. 288.
{}■) Ibid.
jflencc-
?.3io 'The Notion of (J future State derived Part III.
iflence of a God and a Providence. Bat they were not the au-
thors or inventers of thefe doiflrines. They took advantage of
the notions of thefe things, which had already obtained among
the people, and endeavoured to make their own ufe of them.
The moft reafonahle account which can be given of the early and
.univcrfal fpreading of the do(!lrioc of a future ftate among the
nations, is, that it was part of the primitive religion communi-
cated to the firft parents and anceftors of the human race, and
.which came originally by divine revelation, anJ was from them
tranfmitted to their pofterity. Grotius fpeakingof the notion that
•the fouls of men furvived their bodies, fays, ti;iat " this moll: an-
" cient tradition fpread from our firft parents (for from whom
" elfe could it come ?) to almoft all civilized nations." " Qua°
" antiquiflima traditio a primis (unde enim alioqui ?) parentibu?,
" ad populos moratiores pene omnes manavit (z)." And indeed
it cannot well be conceived, that the firft men in the rude illi-
terate ages, when they were little ufed to abftra<£led reafonings,
ihould be able to form notions (if left merely to themfelves) of
fpiritual immaterial beings, or that they had fouls within them
which fliould furvivc their bodies, and continue to think and aft
-without the afliftance of the bodily organs: how ihould they pur-
■fue the refined fpeculations concerning the nature and qualities of
the foul, ^which fo puzzled and embaraffed the acuteft philofo-
phers, and the greateft mafters of reafon, in the ages of learning
and fcience ? The firft men could not fo much as know, till they
were taught by obfervation and experience, or had information of it
(2) Grot, de Vciit. Rdig. Chrifl. lib. i. cap. 22.
2 bv
Chap. II. by 'Tradition from the fir ft ^ges. 3 1 1
b)' foreign inflrudion, that they were to die and have an end put
to their lives by the diflblution of the bodily frame, much lefs
that there was to be another life after this, in which they were'
to be rewarded or punilhed according to their prefent condudl:.'
Since therefore it cannot be denied that fome notion of a future-
flate obtained very early in the world, and fpread very generally
among mankind, and fince there is little likelihood that men in-
thofe firft ages came to the knowledge of it in the way of reafon--
ing and abftrafted fpeculation, it is moft reafonable to refolve it'
into a primitive univerfal tradition, derived from the firft ages.
And to this feveral of the pafiages which have been produced'
from the moft eminent Pagan writers plainly refer, and fome of-
them reprefent that tradition as having been of a divine original.'
And of this there are plain intimations given us in the Holy Scrip--
tures. It is indeed urged by a learned and ingenious writer, who-
is not willing to allow that the nations received any part of their -
religion by tradition from the firfl parents cf mankind ; that " it-
" does not appear that either Adam or Noah received from God
" any thing concerning the immortality of the foul, or a ftatc of
" future rewards and punilliments ; and that no paflage can be
" produced, which contains fuch revelation [a)." But it ap--
pears from the exprefs tellimony of the facred writer to the He-
brews, that Abraham and other patriarchs, v/ho lived but a few-
ages after the flood, looked forward beyond this prefent trnn-
fuory Aate to a better heavenly country. He reprcfents both ■
(a) Dr. Sykcs's Connexion and Principles of NiUural and Revc-Ucd Religion,-
p. 438, 4?9. 4^tO.
tlifcm,
312 TJje Notion of a future State derived Part III.
them, and fome of thofc wlio lived before the flood, as having
lived and walked by faith, which he defcribes to be the " fub-
•' ftance, or confident expedation (as the word there ufed in the
" original might properly be rendered) of things hoped for, and
" the evidence of things not fcen." And this faith muft: be fup-
pofed to have been originally founded on a divine revelation or
promife. And fince it appears from the Mofaic writings, that
God communicated by revelation the knowledge of feveral things
relating to religion and their duty to the firft parents of mankind,
it may be reafonably concluded, that fome notion was alio given
them of the immortality of the foul and a future ftate ; efpccially
after the fentence of death pronounced upon them after the fall.
Some notices of this kind fecm to have been particularly neccflary
on occafion of the death of Abel, who probably was the firfl
man that died, and who feemed to perifli in his righteoulhefs ;
and afterwards, by the tranllation of Enoch, God gave a mani-
fefl: proof of a future (late, prepared for thofe who had obeyed
and ferved him in a holy and virtuous life here on earth. And
as this muft: be known to Noah, he could not be ignorant of tiie
life to come, and would undoubtedly be careful to inftrud his
pollerity in a point of fuch vaft: importance. This, which is
plainly intimated concerning the antediluvian patriarchs, i?, as
hath been already hinted, ftill clearer with refped to Abraham,
and other patriarchs after the flood ; as any one may fee that will
confider what is faid concerning them in the eleventh chapter of
the epiftle to the Hebrews, verfe 9, 10. 13, 14, ij, 16. To
which it may be added, that St. Paul kerns to refer to fome very
antient
Chap. II. by Tradition from the Jirfi Jges. 31 j
antient promlie or revelation concerning this matter, when he fpeaks
of God's having " promifed eternal life, tt^o ^govcov aiMvlw, be-
*' fore antient time?," or as Chryfoftom, Theodoret, and Oecu-
menius render it, xrStv a.ir cce;^m, " of old time from the be-
" ginning of ages." Titus i. 2.(l>)
Thus we have the teftimony of the Holy Scriptures, and of
the moft eminent Heathen writers concerning the great antiquity
of the doftrlne of a future ftate. But in procefs of time, in this
as well as other inftances, the ancient primitive traditions became
greatly corrupted : and at the time of our Saviour's coming the
belief of it was greatly obfcured and almofl: loft, even in the moft
learned and civilized parts of the Heathen world. There was
therefore great need of a divine revelation, which fliould exhibit
far clearer difcoveries, and give fuller affurances of it than had
been ever given to the world before. This was done to the
greateft advantage by the Chriftian revelation : fo that it may be
juftly faid, that our Lord Jefus Chrift hath " brought life and
" immortality to light through the Gofpel."
{b) See Dr. Whitby's Commentary on Tit. i. 2. See alfo Dr. Benfon's Para-
phrafe and Notes on that place.
Vol. II. S f C H A P.
; 14 'T^^'e Do&rbie of the hnmortaUty of the Sciil Part III.
CHAP. III.
The ancient traditions concerning the immortality of the foul and a
future fate became in procefs of time greatly obfcured and cor-
rupted. It was abfolutely denied by many of the phihfopbers^
and rejected as a vulgar error. Others reprefented it as alto-
gether uncertain, and having no flid foundation to fupport it.
The various and contradiSiory fentimetits of the philofophers con-
cerning the nature of the human foul. Many of the Peripatetics
denied the fubfiflence of the foul after death, and this feems to
have been Ariflotle's own opinion, 'the Stoics hid no fettled cr
confiftent fcheme on this head: nor -was the doctrine of the im-
mortality of the foul a doSlrine of their fchool. A future fate
not acknowledged by the celebrated Chinefe philofopher Confucius^
nor by tbefeSi of the learned who profefs to he his difciples.
IT has been fliewn, that tlie belief of the immortality of the
foul, and a future flate, obtained very early among the na-
tions, even in ages that wrere accounted rude and illiterate. One
would have hoped that afterwards in the ages of learning and phi-
lofophy, a dodtrine fo ufcful to mankind, and fo agreeable to
right reafon, would have acquTcd new ftrength. But the faifl
was othcrwife : many of thofe who pretended to a wifdom and
penetration above the vulgar, quitting the ancient traditions, and
affeding to govern themfelves by the pure dictates of reafon, ab-
folutely denied the dodrine of the immortality of the foul and a
future
Chap. III. rejected by many of the Fhilofophen. 315
future ftate, and exploded it as a vulgar error, unworthy of men
of fenfe, and fit only to be left to the unthinking multitude.
There were whole fedts of philofophers, whofe profefled tenet it
was, that the foul died with the body. Such were Democritus
and his followers, the Cynics, Cyrcnaicks, and efpecially the nu-
merous and wide extended fed of the Epicureans: and many
other philofophers agreed with them in this point. The feveral
forts of Sceptics, according to their manner, employed all the
fubtilty they were mafters of againft the do6lrine of the immor-
tality of the foul, and a future ftate, as well as againft other ar-
ticles of popular belief. The famous Ariftotle expreflcs himfelf
in fuch a manner as leaves his greateft admirers in doubt what
his real fentiments were on this fubjedl. Plutarch feems to give it
as Ariftotle's opinion, " that death belongs only to the body, not
" to the foul ; for that there is no death of the foul." 0a'v«Tof
But in the firft book of the Nicomachian Ethics, the eleventh
chapter, having put the queftion, whether any man can be happy
after death, Ariftotle intimates that it would be altogether abfurd
for thofe to fay fo, who make happinefs to confift in operation,
which was his own opinion (d). And in the end of that chapter
he reprefents it as a matter of doubt and difpute, concerning thofe
that are dead, whether they are partakers of any good, or of the
contrary (f). But in the third book of thofe Ethics, the ninth
(c) Plutarch, dc Placit. Philof. lib. v. cap. 25.
((/) Aiiftot. Oper. torn. II. p. 13. B. edit, Puris 1629.
{<;) Ibid, p. 15. A.
S f 2 chapter,
3 16 The DoSfrine of the Immortality of the Soul Part III.
chapter, he himfclf Teems plainly to determine that point in the
negative. He there afltrts, that " death is the moft dreadful of
" all things: for that it is the end [of our exiftence] : and that
" to Jiitn that is dead there feems nothing farther to remain,
" whether good or evil." fi>oQi^u}Ta.Tov ii o S^aVaTOs, -srs'^ccs ya^t
5oai aS'fv ert tcij TeBi':a:T' Joks^, un dyx'ijrt bts ita.y.oy uvai \J ) •
Origen who was well acquainted with the dodtrine of the philo-
fophers, iays, that Ariftotle, after having been for twenty years a
hearer of Plato, going off from his mafter, accufed his dodrine of
the immortality of the foul [g) j and Atticus a noted Platonic phi-
lofopher diredly charges him with denying it (A). Dicjearchus
an eminent Peripatetic philofopher, whom Cicero highly com-
mends, writ books to prove that fouls are mortal (/'). Others of
the Peripatetics were of the fame opinion. Many of them held,
as Stobsus informs us, that the foul is a mere quality, like the
harmony of a mufical inftrument, which vaniflies when the body
is diffolved, and fuddenly pafles into a ftate of non-exiftence. E/s
TO ^ri iTvxi /JLi^KTaTai ('^)- What that great man Cicero fays of the
philofophers in his time is remarkable. In that celebrated trea-
tife where he fets himfelf to prove the immortality of the foul, he
reprefents the contrary as the prevailing opinion ; that there were
crowds of opponents, not the Epicureans only, but, which he
(/) Arillot. Open. torn. II. p. 36. B.
ig) Origen cent. Celf. lib. ii. p. 67. edit. Spcnfcr.
(A) Apud Eufeb. Prxpar. Evangel, lib. xv. cap. 5.
(»■) Tufcul. Difput. lib. i. cap. 31.
(*) Slob. Eclog. Phyf. p. 116. edit. Plantin.
could
Chap. III. rcjeSled by many of the Philofophers. 317
could not well account for, thofe that were efteemed the moft
learned perfons had that dodlrine in contempt. " Catervas veniunt
" contradicentium, nee folum Epicureorum, fed nefcio quomodo
" dodifiimus quifque contemnit (/)." There needs no more to
convince any man of the ftrange confufion among the philofophers
en this head than to read the account Cicero gives of their various
fentiments concerning the nature of the foul. Some faid it was
the heart, others the blood, others the brain, others breath, others
fire, others faid it was nothing but an empty name, others that it
was harmony, others that it was number, others that it was of a
threefold nature of which the rational foul is the principal, others
fuppofed it to be a fifth eflence. Many held it not to be di-
flind; from the bodily temperament : and of thofe who held it
to be diftindl from the body, fome were of opinion that it was
extinguiflied with it at death, or at leaft that it was foon after
diffipated, and did not continue long [m). Seneca fays, " there
" are innumerable queftions about the foul, whence it comes, of
" what quality it is, when it begins to be, how long it fhall con-
" tinue, and whether it palTes from one place to another, and
" changes its habitation, being caft into diflferent forms of ani-
" mals." " Innumerabiles funt quxftiones de animo: unde fit,
" qualis fit, quando efle incipiat, quamdiu fit, an aliunde alio
" tranfeat, et domicilium mutet, ad alias animantium formas
" aliafque conjedtus {n)" The reader may alfo confult what
(/) Tufcul. Difput. lib. i. cap. 31.
(w) Ibid. lib. i. cap. 9, 10, 11.
(/i) Sencc. Epift. 83.
Plutarch
3i8 The Immortality of the Soul Part III.
Plutarch fays concerning the different opinions of philofophers on
the nature of the foul in his treatifc de Placit. Philof. hb. iv. cap.
2, 3. (c) The famous Galen, who was a man of great learning and
abilities, was particularly inquifitive about the nature of the hu-
man foul, but could not come to any fatisfadlion about it. He
daclares, that he was quite ignorant of the nature of the foul, but
that he violently fufpefted that its eflcnce is corporeal, which he
was led to think by obferving that it depends in all its powers and
operations upon the difpofitions and temperament of the body [p).
In enquiring into the opinions of the philofphers on this fub-
je<ft, it is particularly proper to take notice of the Stoics. As
none of the philofophers were ftridter moralifts, or profeffed greater
zeal for the caufe of virtue than they did, one might be apt to
expedl, that they would have been ftrong advocates for the im-
mortality of the foul, and a future ftate of rewards and punifh-
ments. But this was far from being the cafe. Lacflantius indeed
tells us concerning Zcno the Father of the Stoic fedl, that he
taught that " the abodes of good men in the fubterraneous re-
" gions were diftindl and feparate from thofeof the wicked j the
" former inhabit pleafant and delightful region?, the latter fuffer
" punilhments in dark places, and in horrid gulfs full of filth
" and naftinefs." " Eflc inferos Zeno Stoicus docuit, et fedes pio-
" rum ab impiis cffc difcrctas, et illos quidem quietas et deledla-
(0) r;ut.i.ch. Opcr. toin. II. p. 8i;8. edit. Xyl.
ip) G.ilcn puod mum nvjies, &c. cap. i, 2, 3. 5. 9. as cited by Dr. Camp-
hcl!, Neccf. Revel, p. 1 85. ct (eq. wheic tlic reader may feeit at hrgc.
'* biles
Chap. III. nof the DoSirine of the Stoic School, ^\^
" biles incolerc regiones, hos vero lucre pcenas, in tenebrofis locis
•' atque coeni voraginibus hoircndis (^f)." This was agreeable to
the reprefentations made of thefe things in the myllcries. And
it might well be, that Zeno exprefled the popular opinion in this
matter rather than his own. Eut whatever were his fentiments
upon it, certain it is that the dodtrine of the immortality of the
foul, and a future flate of rewards and punifliments, was not the
profefled dodlrine of his fchool, nor was it ever reckoned among
the avowed principles of the Stoic fedt. I cannot indeed fay with
a very learned writer, " we know that the philofophic principle
" of his fchool was that the foul died with the body," for
which he refers to Plutarch's treatife de Placit. Philof. lib. iv.
cap. 7. But Plutarch there only gives it as their opinion, that
when the foul goes out of the body, " that of the weaker, that is,
" of the unlearned, is mixed with the concretions, or earthly ele-
" ments ; but that which is more ftrong and vigorous, fuch as
" are the fouls of the wife, fhall continue to the conflagration."
And he there diilinguifhes the fentiments of the Stoics from that
of Democritus and Epicurus, who, he fays, taught that the foul
is corruptible, and periflieth with the body. Cicero exprefly
afcribeth to the Stoics the opinion that the foul furviveth the
body, and fubfifteth in a feparate flate for fome time after death,
but not always. " Aiunt manere animos cum a corpore excef-
ferint, fed non femper." And he blames them, for that when
they acknowledged that the foul continues to fubfift feparately
from the body, which is the moft difficult part of the controverfy,
Cy) Laf^an. Divin. Inftit. lib. vii. c.ip. 7.
i yet
320 The Immzrtal'tty of the Soul Part III.
yet they would not allow that which is the natural confequence of
it, that the foul fliall never die (r). Agreeable to this is that
which Lacrtius faith, that the Stoics held that " the foul re-
" maineth after death, but that it is corruptible." -^u-^r.v fxirci
^oivxTov e7rifJi.eveiv, (pBccprw ^f eTvcti (s.) The fame I.acrtius in-
forms us, that Cleanthcs maintained, that all fouls fliall continue
to the conflagration ; Chryfippus, that only the fouls of the wife
fliall continue fo long (t). Numenius, as cited by Eufebius, Prjep.
Evang. lib. xv. cap. 20. gives it as the opinion of many of the
Stoics, that " the foul is corruptible, but does not die or pcrifli
" immediately upon its departure from the body, but continues
" for feme time by itfelf, that which is wife to the diffolution of
" all things, that of fools for fome fliort time." It is however
true that fome of the Stoics feem to have held that the foul dies
immediately with the body, or at Icafl; that it is immediately re-
folved or refumed into one common nature, or the univerfal foul,
fo as to lofe its individual exiftence. Some paflages in Epidetus
and Antoninus feem to look this way. From all which it may
be gathered that the Stoics had very confufed notions on this head,
and feem not to have formed any fettled or confident fcheme. It is
obfcrved in a note on the excellent tranflation of Antoninus's Me-
ditations publiflied at Glafgow, that " the Stoics fpoke doubt-
" fully about a future ftate, whether the rational foul fubfifled as
(r) Tufcul. Difput. lib. i. cap. 31.
{s) Lacrt. lib. vii. fcgm. 156.
{t) Ibid. fcgm. i;;. Sec alfo Mcnigius's obfcrvatlons upon ir, p. 316. edit.
^'Ctflein.
" feparate
Chap. lU. not the Dooirine of the Stoic School. 3 : i
" feparate intelligences, or were abforbed in the Divinity. Many
" believed a feparate exiftence (if good fouls for a thoufand years,
" and of the eminently virtuous for eternity, in the dignity of
"' gods, which we would call that of angels, with delegated
" powers for governing certain parts of the univerfe («)." To
which may be added, what is faid in another note, " that we
" cannot conclude from their fpeaking of the re-union after death,
" that individual perfons ceafc to be diftindt perfons from the
" Deity, and from each other; fince it was the known tenet of
" the Stoics, that heroic fouls were called to the dignity of gods
" or immortal angels: and they mean no more than an entire
" moral union by refignation and a complete conformity of
" will {v)." But this does not fcem to me to be a jull: rcprefcn-
tation of the Stoical doclrine. They certainly meant more by the
refufion into the univerfal foul than a moral union or conformity
to the will of God. It is capable of a clear proof from the beft
of the ancient writers who have mentioned it, that this re-union
of the foul was underflood not merely in a moral but in a phy-
fical fenfe. The reader may fee this fully proved by the learned
and judicious author of the " Critical Enquiry into the Opinions
" and Pradices of the ancient Philofophers concerning the Nature
" of the Soul and a future State," ch. v. where there is an accurate
account given of the opinion of the Stoics in this matter. At pre-
fent I fhall only obferve that it is a known part of the Stoical doc-
trine, that at certain periods and conflagrations, a fuccefiion of
(.7) See the Glafgow tranfluilon of Antoninus, p. 228.
(z<) Ibid. p. 454.
Vol II. T t which
^Z2 The ImiHortaHty of the Soul Part III.
which they believed would happen, all things were to be con-
fumed and refolvcd into the fubftance of God himfclf, wnich
they fuppofed to be of a fiery nature : that nothing would re-
main but the chief God, and that all the other gods, much
more the iicroic fouls, were corruptible and would die. For
which notion they are feverely expofed by Plutarch in his two
treatifes againfl: the Stoics. To this notion Epidtetus refers when
he talks of " Jupiter's being alone at the conflagration, and hav-
" ing neither Juno, nor Pallas, nor Apollo, nor brother, nor fon,
" nor dependent, nor relation {x)." Seneca fpeaking of the con-
flagration or diflblution of the world, faith, that " thofe fouls
" which were happy, and had obtained eternal felicity, fliall then
" be involved in the common ruin, and return to the antient ele-
" ments." " Nos quoque fclices anima;, et aiterna fortita?, cum
" Deo vifum erit iterum ifl:a moliri, labentibus cundlis, et ipfi
" parva ruina; ingentis acccffio, in antiqua elementa vertemur ( v)."
TIius it was to be even with the mofl: privileged fouls. The
Stoics therefore did not believe, as is fuppofed in the above-men-
tioned note, that eminently virtuous fouls were to continue in a
feparate exigence, and in the dignity of gods to eternity, except
by eternity be meant no more than Seneca intends by his " felices
" anima; et a;terna fortita;," which yet were to be confumed at the
general confl.igration. But as to the common kind of fouls, they
were in the opinion of many of the Stoics, to be immediately re-
(jf) Ep'Kflet. Diflcrt. book iii. chap. 13. fed. i.
(_y) Senec, in Confol. ad Marciain, in fine.
funded
Chap. III. not the DcBrine of the Stoic School. 523
funded into the " anlma mundi," and thereby lole their individual
exiftence much fooncr [z).
' (2) It is to be obferved that thefe periodica] conflagrations were defigned ta
be fo many renovations of the world. All things were to be refunded into the
divine fubftance in order to their being produced anew. Many of the Stoics fup-
pofed, that then the fame order and courfe of things in every refpecT: would be
repeated whicli was before : the very ftme perfons would appear again on this
earthly fl.igc, and afl their whole former life again, cxi^flly in the fame manner as
they had done before, and be fubjeft in every thing to the fame «vcnts and acci-
dents. Others who faw the inconvenlency of this, explained it not of the very fome
individual perfons, but of other perfons perfeftly fimilar to them, and exa{flly
refembling them in their charaders, aftions, and all the circumflances which at-
tended them. They held that fuch revolutions aUvays have been, and always
fliall be repeated in a perpetual fucccffion throughout an infinite duration, and they
fuppofed them to be the effects of a phyfical neccflity *. It is evident that upon
this hypothcfis, there could be no proper ftate of future retributions. The fiimt
face and ftate of things is continually to return at certain periods : and the prefent
feemingly unequal difpenfations of Providence to be repeated and renewed.
It may not be improper to obfcrve here, that the notion of fucceflive diffolutions
and renovations of the world has penetrated to the fartheft parts of the Eall, and
perhaps from the Eaft it was originally derived. F. Longobardi, whom I have
cited beforr, in his treatife concerning the learned fefl in China, obferves that it is
a doftrine of theirs, that when the years of the world's continuance are at an end,
this univerfe will expire and all things in it, even all fpirits will then have an end,
and among the reft Tien Chu, and Xangti, the Lord of Heaven, or King of
the upper Region: all things fliall return to the firft principle, which fliall pro-
duce another world after the fame manner. And this alfo ending, another will
fucceed, and fo another without end. And he obferves, that the interval between
the beginning and end of the world is called by them the great year. See F.
Longobardi's treatife in the fifth book of Navarette's account of the Empire of
China, p. 184. The Stoics :dfo called the interval between the periodical confla-
grations the great year. Eufeb. Praep. Evang. lib. xv. cap. 19.
• Concerning this fee Numenius apud Eurcb. I'rccpir. Evangel, lib. xv. cap i8 et 19. AndNcmcf.
de Fato, cap. 38. The reader may fee thefe anJ other teOlmonies produced by the learned author of
the Critical Enquiry abovemcniioneJ, ch. v. I'o this Antoninus refers, whtn he talks cf the periodical
renovation of the whcle or of the univerfe — Th OTjisJixiiy fraXi)y«)»<rm» txi 'o.m, Anton. Medit, book
xi. k(\. I. Sec alfo ibid, book v. fc^, 13. 32. and book x. fcfl. 7.
T t 2 Tlie
3^4 The Immortality of the Soul Part III.
The three moft eminent Stoics, whofc writings are come
down to us, are Seneca, Epidetus, and the emperor Marcus An-
toninus. As to the lirft of thcfc great men, he fcems to have
been ftrangely unfettled in his notions with regard to the immor-
tality of the Ibul, and a future ftatc. Sometimes he fpeaks in a
clear and noble manner of the happincfs of fouls after death, when
freed from the incumbrance of the body, and received into the
place or region of departed fouls. See his Confol. ad I'olyb. cap.
28. et Confol. ad Marc. cap. 25'. But efpecially his load epiftle
to Lucilius, where he hasfome fublime thoughts on this fubjedl;
and among other things declares, that the laft day of this prefent
life is to be regarded as the birth-day of an eternal one. " Dies
" ifte quern tanquam extrcmum refoimidas a:terni natalis elh"
At other times he expreflls himfelf with great doubt and uncer-
tainty. In that very epiftle to Lucilius, he reprefents it as a kind
of pleafing dream, and that it was an opinion embr?xed by great
men, very agreeable indeed, but which they promifed rather than
proved. " Crcdtbam facile opinionibus magnorum virorum rem
" gratiffimam promittentium magis quam probantium." And in
his fixty-third epiftle, " perhaps, faith he, if the report of wife
" men be true, and fome place receives us after death, he whom
" wc think to have periflied is only fent before." " Fortafle, li
" modo fapientum vera fama eft, rccipitque nos locus aliquis,
" quern putamus periflb, prcemiflus eft." And again, in his
feventy-fixth epiftle, " If it be fo, fays he, that fouls remain
'' after they are fet loofe from the body, a happier ftate awaits
" them, than wliilft they arc in the body." " Si modo folutic
. " corporibus
Chap. HI. vot tbi' Bccfn'jie of the Stoic School. 325
" corpcribus animx^ manent, felicior illis flatus rcfcat, quani eft
" dum verfantLii- in corpore."
Thefc, and other paflagcs of the hke kind, lljew the doubt and
uncertainty he was in ; but he fometimes carries it farther, and
icems plainly to deny that the foul has any exiftence after death,
or at leaft that it has any fcnfe of good or evil. What he fays in
his 5 ,-th epiftle to Lucilius is very remarkable to this purpofe. He
tells him of a violent diforder which feized him on a fudden, and
feemcd to threaten immediate death. And he informs him Vv^hat
the thoughts were which fupportcd and comforted him, even
when he was, as he thought, in his lafl: agony : " Ego vero et in
" ipfa fuffocatione non defii cogitationibus Isetis ac fortibus acqui-
•' efcere." And what was it that yielded him comfort in a dying
hour ? Was it the hope of a happy immortal cxiftcnce beyond the
grave, of which he fometimes fpeaks in magnificent terms ? No ;
but it was the thought, that he fliould be in the fame infenfible
flate after death that he was in before he was born, and fliould
return to a flate of non-exiftence [a). " I have had long e?:pe-
(a) " Ego illam [mortem] diu expertus fum. Quamdiu, inquts ? Antequim
" nafcerer. Mors eft non cfie : iJ qu;i!e fit, jam fcio : hoc trit poft me, quod
" ante me fuit : fiquid in hac re torment! eft, necelTe erit, et fuifll- antequam pro-
" diremus in lucem. Atqui nuUam fenlimus tunc vexationcm. Rogo, non (lal-
" tiflimum dicas, fiquis exiftimct lucerna; pejus efte cum cxtinfla (.ft, quamantc-
" quam acccuderetur ? Nos quoque et accendiiniir et extinguimur : medio illo
" tempore aliquid patimur : utrobiquc autem alta fecuritas eft. In hoc enim, mi
" Lucili, nil! fallor, erramus, quod mortem judicamus fequi, quum ilia et pr.c-
" cefTerit, et fccutura fit. Qnicquid ante nos fuit mors eft. Quid enim refcrt
" utrum non incipias, an definas ? Utrinfqucrei hie eft effeftus, non cffe." Scnec.
cpift. 55. edit. Commelin. 15941
2 *• rience
3 a (S The Immortality of the Soul and a future State Part III.
" lience of death (fays he). How long? fay you. Before I was
" born. Death is not to be : what that is, I already know.
" That fhall be after nie which was before me. If there be any
" torment in tliis, we muft needs have experienced it, before we
*' came into the light. But we then felt no vexation. Would
" you not think it a very foolifli thing, if any man fhould think
" that the candle is in a worfe condition after it is put out, than
*' before it was lighted ? We alfo are lighted and extinguifhed.
" We fuffer fomething in the interval between thefe, but both
" before and after there is a profound fecurity. For in this, my
" Lucilius, if I be not miflaken, we err, that we imagine death
" only to follow, whereas it both went before tliis life, and fliall
" follow after it. Whatfoever was before us is death. For where
" is the difference between not beginning to be at all, and ceafing
" to exift ? The effed; of both is the fame, not to be." He re-
peats the fame thought in Confol. ad Polyb. cap. 27. as alfj in
Confol. ad Marciam, cap. 19. where he abfolutely rejeds the
notion of future punifliments, and ailerts, that a dead man is af-
fedled with no evils, but is in the fame ftate of tranquillity he
was in before he was born {h). Again he fays, that no fenfe of
evil can reach to him that is dead : which he proves, becaufe no-
thino; can hurt him who is not. " Nullum mali fenfum ad eum
[b) Torquatus the Epicurean, who defends the Epicurean fyAetn in Cicero's
fiili book De Fiiiibus, tajks attcr the fame manner : " RobuAus et excclicns ani-
" mus, omni eft liber cura ct angore, cum et mortem conicmnit, qua qui adfeiHi
" font, in cadem caufa funt qua, antcquam nati, et ad dolores ita paratus eft, ut
" memioerit maxuaios morte riniii." De t'inib. lib. i. cap. 15. p. 50. edit.
Davis.
" qui
Chap. III. net the DoSfrine of the Stoic School. 357
" qui perit pervcnirej nam fi pccvenit non periit, nulla inquam,
'' eum res la:dit qui miIIus eft [c)."
That excellent Stoic Epi(5tetus never takes any notice of a future
flate of rewards and punilhments; though, had he been perfuaded
of the truth of them, the fubjedls he treats of would have led him
to mention them : efpecially confidering that he treats things in a
popular way, and defigned his philofophy not merely for fpecula-
tion, but for ufe. He frequently aflerts, as I had occafion to ob-
fervc before, that a good man needs no other reward than his own
goodnefs and virtue, nor has the wicked man any other punifli-
ment than his own vices. And the comfort he gives againft death
is, that it is natural and neceflary ; and therefore can be no evil,
for all evils may be avoided. He elfevvhere obferves, that at death
we go to nothing dreadful. We then return to the elements of
which we were made, fire, air, earth, and water. There is no
Hades, nor Acheron, nor Cocytus, nor Pyriphlegethon : but all
is full of gods and daemons (i^).
That great emperor and philofophcr Marcus Antoninus, always
cxprclTes himfelf very doubtfully on this point, as the learned Ga-
taker, who was fo well acquainted with his works, and his great
admirer, obferves, " De ftatu animorum poft mortem ambigendo
" paflim Marcus fermonem inftituit (c)." And again, " De animi
(?) Sen. epift. 99.
{d) Epi<n:. Differt. book iii. chap. 13. kdi\ i?
{e) Gataker Annot. in Anton, p.' 90.
" flatu
323 The Immortality of the Soul and a future State Part III.
" {latu poll mortem inccrtus fluduat pafllm Marcus (/)." He
generally fpeaks of it vvaveringly, and in a way of alternative.
" Concerning death (fays he) it is either a difperfion, or atoms,
" or exinanition, yAvxan, or an extindlion, or a tranflation to an-
'' other ftate." 'Htoi oCsVfs ?i y.iTx<rcio-ti (g). And again, " Re-
" member ({ays he) that either this corporeal mixture muft: be
" difperfed, or that the fpirit of life muft be either extinguiflied
" or removed, and brought into another place (/»)." And in an-
other paflage he fuppofcs, that " as dead bodies, after remaining
" a while in the earth, are changed and dlflipated, to make room
" for other bodies, fo the animal fouls removed to the air, after
" they have remained fomc time, are changed, diftufed, re-
" kindled, and refumed into the original produ<^ive fpirit, [ai
" 10V Ttoc oAwi/ as^fj-aTixoi' ^.oyor, into the feminal reafon of the
" univcrfe] and give place to other fouls in like manner to
" cohabit with them." He adds. That " this anfwer may be
" made on fuppofition that the fouls furvive their bodies (/)."
Gatakef obferves in his annotations upon this paflage, that An-
toninus does not feem here to think that fouls (hall continue to
the conflagration, but fliall be extinguiflied or refumed fooner, that
they may give place to other fouls. And he adds, That " the Stoics
" dreamed of one common univerfal foul, from whence all other
" fouls were as it were cut off, or which was a kind of fountain
(/) Gataker Annot. in Anton, p. 423.
(g) Anton. Medit. book vii. fcft. 3:.
(/;) Ibid, book viii. fefl. 25.
(i) Ibid, book iv. feft. 21. GLifgow uaaflation.
" of
Chap. III. not the DoBr'ine of the Stoic School. 329
*' of all the reft, and into which they were all to be again re-
*' funded (^)." I fhall only mention one paffage more of An-
toninus, in which after having faid, " I conlifl of an adive and
*' a material principle," he adds, " every part of me fliall be dif-
** pofed, upon its dilTolution, into the correfpondent part of the
" univerfe j and that again fliall be changed into fome other part
" of the univerfe, and thus to eternity (/)." To this may be
added, what was taken notice of before, that neither Antoninus
nor Epidletus ever give the leaft hint of men's being judged or
called to an account after death for their conduft in this life, or
that the wicked fliall be puniflicd in a future ilate.
It is obferved by the celebrated Monf. dc Montefquieu, That
*' the religion of Confucius denies the immortality of the foul,
" and the fedl of Zeno did not believe it." — " La religion de
'^ Confucius nie I'immortalite de I'ame, et la fedte de Zenon ne
" la croyoit pas (w)." I have already confidered the fentiments
of the fedl of Zeno on this head. As to the famous Chinefe phl-
lofopher Confucius and his difciples, who, like the Stoics, have
always profefTed to make morals their chief fludy, it appears by
the beft accounts which are given of them, that they do not ac-
knowledge the immortality of the foul and a ftate of future retri-
{k) " Unam anunam commnnem et univerfalem fomniabant Stoici, unde reliquae
*' omncs eflent qua/i decife, five quae rcliquarum omnium fons quidam exiflcret,
" in qucm etiam denuo quafi rcfundercntur." Gat. Annot. in Antonin. p. 141.
(/) Anton. Med. book v. feft. 13. See alfo book vii. fe^l. 10,
(»/) L'Efprit dcs Loix, Vol. II. liv. 24. chap. 19. p. 166. edit. EJiub.
Vol. II. U u butiojis.
3 so 7 he Immortality of the Soul and a future State Part III.
butlons. Father Navarette, who was a long time in China, and
well acquainted with their bboks, affirms, that Confucius knew
nothing of the rewards and puniHiments of another life (;?). He
alfo obferves concerning the fecond great Chinefe philofopher Meng
Za, who lived one hundred years after Confucius, and to whom
the Chinefe ere<fl temples, holding him in great veneration next to
Confucius, that he has admirable moral fentences ; but in his
books there is not the leaft appearance of his having the know-
ledge of God, of the immortality of the foul, and the rewards
and punishments of a future life : and he would have mentioned
this in his writings, if he had found any fuch thing in the dodlrine
of Confucius, which he diligently learned and ftudied (o). The
fame author obferves, that the Chinefe often fpeak of heaven's re-
warding the virtuous, and punifliing the wicked ; but that mofl
certain it is, that they fpeak not of what is in the other life, but in
this. They look upon rewards and puni/hments to be the natural
and neceflary attendants of virtue and vice, which accompany
them as the fhadosv does the body (/>). F. Longobardi, in the
(reatife I have cited before, fiiys it is the general opinion of the
Chinefe, that he who does well fhall be naturally and of neceflity
rewarded, and he that does ill puniflied ; as he is warmed that
draws near the fire, and he grows cold that is in the fnow {q).
(n) See his Account of the Empire of China, in the iiiA volume of Churchill's
CoUedlion of Travels and Voyages, p. 113.
(9) Ibid. p. 139.
{» Ibid. p. 137, 13S.
(q) Ibid, p.- 1 8 5.
The
Chap. III. not achioivkdged by Confucius and his Difciples. 3 3 1
The fame father fliews, both from their cafllcal books of greatefl
authority, and from the unanimous profeffion of the moll learned
mandarins, that the doftrine of future rewards and punirtiments
is not received or acknowledged by the learned fecfl. Speaking
of himlelf and other miflionaries that were with him, he fays,
" We alked doftor King Lun Ju, a mandarin of the court of rites,
" whether, according to the fedl of the learned, there was any re-
*' ward or punifhment in the other life ? He laughed at the queftion ;
" and then anfwered, that it could not be denied that there were
" virtues and vices in this world ; but that all ended with death,
" when the man in whom were thefe things expired : and there-
*' fore there was no need of providing for the next life, but only
" for this." F. Longobardi produces feveral otlier teftimonies to
the fame purpofe, which I need not particularly mention, and de-
clares, that he had often converfcd with their mofl learned man-
darins in feveral parts of China during the time he refided there,
and found that they all agreed unanimoufly in this (/). He alfo
mentions
(r) Navarette's Account of the Empire of China, in the firft volume of Churchill is
Colle(5lionof Voyages and Travels, p. 197, 198. I (hall on this occafion mention
what a mandarin faid to F. Matth. Ricdo, when he difcourfed with him about the
Chriflian faith, and eternal life. After having treated what the father had faid
concerning a future ftate as nothing but talk and vain words, which the wind
drivcth awaj', the mandarin plainly declared, that he looked for no higher happi-
nefs than what arifeth from things prefent and vifible. " What we fee (faid he) is
" the advantage of governing and commanding others. Gold, filver, wives and
" concubines, as alfo a numerous train, goods, feaftings, diverfions, and all forts
" of happlncfs, honour and glory, are the confequences of being a mandarin.
" This is the happincfs we covet, and which we enjoy in our great and mighty
" empire-; and not the happincfs you talk of, which is as unprolitabliJ as it is in-
" villble, and impoflible to obtain." And in this he feems to have fpoke the fenfe
of the mandarins in general. Thefe notions of theirs have a very bad itifluence on
U u 2 their
33 2 "TLe himortalif}' of the Soul an J a future State Part III.
mentions n converfation he lind with Dr. Michael, a learned Chf-
nefe Chriftian, who hinifclf was of the feci of the learned, and
perfecftly well acquainted with their tenets, and was one of thofc
who were willing, as far as poflible, to interpret them fo as to
bring them to a conformity with the Chrifkian doftrine. Being
aflicd by the father, " Whether after death there be any rev/ards
*' or puniOiments for good or wicked men according to the doc-
" trine of the learned fedl? He anfwered, they make no mention
*' of anv fuch things. Here he fighed, and complained of the
•' profclTors of that (<z&.^ for not teaching the things of another
" life ; which, faid he, is the caufe that the multitude is not en-
" couraged to pradife virtue in earneft. And he commended the
" fedl of Foe for preaching up heaven and hell (/)."
Confucius being afked by one of his difciples. What angels of
fpirits arc, anfwered, That they are air. And this is the notion
that the Chiuefe have of the foul. They look upon it to be a
their moral conduift. As they look upon the enjoyment of this prefent world, its
riclies, lionouis, and pleafurcs, to be the higheft and only happinefs, they ftick at
no methods, how unfair or iinjuft foever, to obtain them. It is agreed by all,
even by thofe that are mofl prejudiced in favour of the Chlnefe, that though the
learned mandarins fpcak highly of virtue, and profLfs to make the do(flrine of mo-
rals, and the good order of the ftate in general, and the happinefs of each particu-
lar pcrfon, their whole ftudy, there is a great and general corruption among them,
and little regard is had to juftice and honcfly, but every thing is carried by the
force of money at their tribunals. See, among others, Cemelli Carreri's Account
of China, in his Voyage round the World, Part IV. book ii. chap. 4. p. 310. and
ibid. chap. vii. p. 328. 330. in Churchill's Collcflion of Travels, &c. Vol. IV.
(/) Navarette's Account of the Empire of China, in the firA volume of Churchill'e
Colleflion of Travels aud Voyages, p. 1 97,
material
Ghap. III. not acknowledged by Confucim and his DifcipUs, 535
material thing, though highly rarefied : and that when the foul is
feparated from the body, both of thcni lofe the individual being
they had before, and nothing remains but the fubflance of heaven
and earth, which had before concurred to the compofition of man,
and which, as general caufes, ever continue in their fubflantial
being, and are only changed in their accidental forms [i).
This may fuffice concerning the opinions of the learned feft in
China, with refped: to the immortality of the foul, and a future
flate of retributions. The reader may alfo confult to the fame
purpofe a tracfl of a Chinefe philofopher in Du Halde's colledllon
©f Chinefe pieces, in the third volume of his Hiftory of China.
[t) Navarette'S Account of the Empire of China, in the firft volume of Churchill's
Colleftbn of Travels and Voyages, p. 195.
CHAP.
.3'54' 77j^ Do^rhie of Pythagoras Part III.
CHAP. IV.
Conccrnhig the phihfophers tvho projejfed to believe and teach the
immortality of the foul. Of thefe Pythagoras is generally ejleemed^
one of the mojl eminent. His doSlrine en this head JJje'wn to be
not ivell confiflcnt ivith a fate of future rewards and piniiJJi-
ments. Socrates believed the inwiortaiity of the foul and a future
fate^ and argued for it. In this he icas folloived by Plato.
The doSirine of Cicero ivith regard to the immortality of the feu I
confdercd. As olfo that of Plutarch.
IT fufficiently appears, from what was obfcrved in tlic former
chapter, what confufiion there was among the Heathen- philo-
fophers, with regard to the dodrine of the immortality of the
foul and a future ftate : that great numbers of them abfokitely
denied it ; and others treated it as a mere uncertainty, and did
not teach it as a dodlrine of their fchools.
But then it muft be acknowledged, that there were other cele-
brated philofophers whofe profefled tenet it was that the foul is
immortal. _ This is faid to have been the dodlrine of the Perfian
Magi, and the Indian Gymnofophifts («). But what I fliall par-
ticularly confider is the dodtrine of thofe among the Greek phi-
lofophers, who held the immortality of the foul. Of thefe the
(«) Concerning the Indian Gymnofopbifts, and llic wrong iifc they and others
mads of this doiftrinc, Ice what is faiJ above, p. 219, 220. of iliis volume.
moll:
Chap. IV. concerning the Immortality of the Sou! confidered. 335
moft eminent were the Pythagoreans and Platonifts. Let us
therefore enquire into their fentiments on this head, and whether
they were likely to lead the people into right notions concerning
it, and which might be of real fervice to the caufe of religion and
virtue.
The Pythagoreans were generally reckoned among the mo ft
ftrenuous afferters of the immortality of the foul : but in aflerting
it they went upon a wrong principle. Pythagoras, as was ob-
ferved before (;;), taught that the foul was a part of the divinity or
univerfal foul, which was every-where diffuf^d j and in this, as
Cicero ailures us, he was followed by all the Pythagoreans (_)').
And hence he argued, that the foul is immortal ; becaufe that out
of which it is difcerped is immortal {z). Plutarch afferts, that
Pythagoras and Plato held, that the foul is immortal or iiicor-
ruptible; " becaufe when it departs out of the body, it goes to
*' the foul of the univerfe, to that which is congenial with itfelf."
T\pU TO Qu.'jyivii (a). But then this returning into the foul of the
world muft not be underftood, according to Pythagoras's notion,
to take place immediately, till after the foul had gone through
feveral tranfmigrations. For it is a known dodlrine of his, that
the fouls of men after death tranfmigrate from one body to an-
other, and even to the bodies of beads as well as men. Porphyry,
(jc) Sec here above. Vol. I. chap. xii.
(y) Cic. Cato Major, cap, 21. ct Dc Nat. Deor. lib. i. cap. 11.
(2) Laert. lib. viii. fcgm. 28.
{a) Plutarch, dc Placit. Philof. lib. iv. cap. 7,
after
^■^6 Tie Doclr 'me of Pythagoras Part III.
after liaving obferved tlvat what Pythagoras delivered to his audi-
tors, i. c. to his own proper difciples, cannot be certainly af-
firmed, for there was a great and ftrid filence obferved amongft
them, fays, that his dodtrines known to all are thefe : firft, that
" the foul is immortal, then that it enters into other kinds of
" living creatures." He held alfo, that " after certain periods,
" the things that were formerly done are done over again." Or,
as Mr. Stanley renders it, " the fame things that arc now genc-
" rated are generated again, and that there is nothing abfolutely
" new : and that all animals are near a-kin, and of a like
" kind {b)r
Diodorus Siculus affirms, that he learned his dodrine of the
tranfmigration of fouls from the Egyptians (c). And Herodotus
informs uSj that the antient Egyptians faid, " that the foul of man
' is immortal, and that the body being corrupted, the foul goes
" into the body of one animal after another, and after it has gone
" round, -s^^iiAc'n, or performed its circuit, through all terreftrial
" and marine animals and birds, it again entereth into fome human
" body, and that this circuit or circumvolution was completed in
*' three thoufand years." He adds, that this opinion fome of the
Greeks ufurped, as if it was their own invention, and that he
knew their names, but chofe not to mention them, in whicli
probably he had a particular view to Pythagoras (</). Tliis tranf-
(/') Porphyr. Vita Pythag.
[c) Biblioth. lib. i. p. 86. ct Euftb. Prxpar. Evangel. lib. x. cap. 8. p. 482.
(</) Herod, lib. il.
2 migration
Chap. rV. concerning the Immortality of the Soul conJJdcred. 337
migration of fouls taught by the Eg)'ptians, as here reprefented by
Herodotus, feems to be phyfical, and neceflary by a natural and
fatal neceflity, and is a quite different thing from a future ftate of
rewards and punifhments defigned for moral purpofes. Agreeable
to this is the reprefentation Laertius makes of Pythagoras's dodrine,
That " the foul, pafling through the circle of necefTity, lives at
*' feveral times in different living creatures (<?)." But he is mif-
taken in fuppofing Pythagoras to have been the firft author of this
dodrine, for the Egyptians had taught it before him. But though
this tranfmigration as taught by the Egyptians, according to Hero-
dotus, was natural and neceffary, yet they endeavoured fo to ex-
plain it, as to apply it to moral purpofes. And fo alfo Pythagoras
feems to have done, at leaft in his popular difcourfes. Laertius
tells us, that " he held that the foul being caft out upon the earth,
" wanders in the air, like to a body, and that Mercury is the
^' keeper and condudor of fouls, and brings them out of bodies,
*' both from the earth and fea: and that pure fouls are led into
*' high places; but that the impure neither come near to them,
'' nor to one another, but are bound by the furies in indiffoiuble
" chains (/ )•" Theodoret reprefents it as his opinion as well as that
of Plato, that " fouls are prae-cxiflent to bodies, and that thofe which
" tranfgrefs are fent again into bodies, that being purified by fuch
'* dilcipline, they may return to their own place : that thofe which
" vvhilft they are in the body lead a wicked life, are fent down
•*' farther into irrational creatures, hereby to receive punilhmcnt
{c) Laert. lib. viii. fcgm. 14.
{/) Ibid. fegm. 31.
Voi. II. Xx " and
338 The DoStrine of Pythagoras Pa r 1 1 IT.
" and right expiition ; the angry and malicious into fcrpents, tlie
" ravenous into wolves, the audacious into lions, the fraudulent
" into foxes, and the like {g)-' Timacus the Locrian, an emi-
nent Pythagorean, in that celebrated paflage at the end of his
treatifc of the Soul of the world, gives pretty mucli the fame ac-
count. That " fouls tranfmigrate or change their habitations :
" thofe of the cowards and effeminate are thruft into the bodies of
" women J thofe of murderers, into the bodies of favage beafls;
" the lafcivious, into the forms of boars or fvvinc ; the vain and
" inconftant are changed into birds, and the flothful and ignorant
" into fiHies [h)." He reprefcnts it as neceflary to teach thefe
things to the people, and to inftil into them the dread of foreign
torments : though he plainly intimates, that they were falfe rela-
tions, and that he himfelf did not believe them to be, literally
true, which probably was the cafe of Pythagoras himfelf. Ovid, in
his Metamorphofis, introduces Pythagoras as delivering his dodrine
to the people of Crotona, and reprefents him as dircding them
not to be afraid of punilhments after death, of Styx, darkncfs,
vain names, and falfe terrors : that they were not to think that the
body can feel any evil ; and as to the fouls, they are immortal, and
are always changing their habitations, and leaving their former
abodes, arc received into new ones.
<« O ("enus attonitum ftolida; formidinc mortcs !
" Quid Styga, quid tenebras, et nomina vana timetis,
{g) Stanley's Hiftory of Philofophy, p. 559. edit, id, Lond.
(h) The reader may fee the whole paffage quoted from the origin.il, and ele-
gantly tr.mfl.ucd. Divine Legation of Mofc?, Vol. II. book iii. p. 143, i^.j.
edit. 4th.
" Matcricm
Chap. IV. concerning the Immortality of the Soul confidered. ^^^
" Materiem vatum, falfique piacula mundi ?
" Corpora five rogus flamma, feu tabe vetuftas
" Abftulerit, mala poffe pati non uUa putetis.
" Morte carent animae, femperque priore relida
** Sede, novis domibus vivunt, habitantque receptae."
Metamorph. lib. xv. vcr. IJ3. et feq.
Mr. Sandys tranflates it tlius :
" O you, whom horrors of cold death affright,
" Why fear you Styx, vain names, and endicfs night,
*' The dreams of poets, and feigned miferies
" Of forged hell ? Whether laft flames furprize,
" Or age devours your bodies ; they nor grieve,
" Nor fiiffer pain. Our fouls for ever live:
" Yet evermore their antient houfes leave
" To live in new, which them as guefts receive."
Ovid here reprefents Pythagoras as maintaining perpetual tranfmi-
grations of the foul into other bodies, and this by a kind of phy-
fical neceflity : which fcems not well to confift with what Plu-
tarch gives as Pythagoras's opinion, that the foul, when it departs
out of the body, recedes to the foul of the world, as being of the
fame kind with it.
It is farther to be obfervcd, that though Pythagoras fcemed to
make a tranfmigration into other bodies common and neceffary to
all fouls ; yet he made an exception in favour of fome highly pri-
vileged fouls, as if they were exempted from the common law
X X 2 and
340 The Do5lrine of Pythagoras concerning the Part IIL
and neceffity to which others are fubjcdl. Laertius reprefents it
as one of his tenets, that fome fouls become daemons and he-
roes (/'). And the golden verfes of Pythagoras, which contain a
fummary of his moral do6trine, conclude with promifing to him.
who fhould obey his precepts, that he fliould, upon leaving the-
body, go into the free aether, and become an immortal god, in-
corruptible, and no more obnoxious ta death.
Whofoever impartially confiders and compares the different ac-
counts that are given us of the Pythagoric dodrine, will find it very
difficult to form them into a confident fcheme. Plutarch, as was
before obferved, reprefents it as Pythagoras's opinion, that the
fouls of men return to the univerfal foul, out of which they were
taken, immediately upon their quitting the body [k). But if that
were the cafe, it muft: be faid, either that there are no tranfmi-
grations at all, which is contrary to Pythagoras's known opinion,
or that after the foul has been for a while re-united to the univerfal
foul of the world, it is again feparated from it, in order to ani-
(i) Lacrt. lib. viii. fegm. 32. Plutarch afcribes tlic fii me opinion, not only to
Pythagoras, buttoThales, Plato, and the Stoics. De Placit. Philof. lib. i. cap. 8.
Oper, torn. II. p. 882. edit. Xyl.
(A) In like manner Numenius reprefents it as the dotTlrine of fome of the Stoics,
who, as well as the Pythagoreans, held the refufion of the foul into the univerfal
nature, that " the foul of the univerfe was eternal, and other fouls would be
" miy-ed with it at death, sot ro-tin^" Apud Eufeb. Prxp. Evang. lib. xv. cap.
20. And Antoninus in a palTage cited above, p. 329. fuppofcs that fouls ftiall
continue after leaving the body, for fome fliort time in the air, and then be refumed
into the univerfal foul. And he elfewhere fpeaks of the refumption of the adive
principle, or the foul, into the intelligence of the whole, as done raxira, " vciy
" foon, quam celerrime," asGatakcr renders it. Anton, lib. vii. fetfb. 10.
mate
Chap. IV. Immortality of the Soul and a future State confulercd. ^li ]
mate other bodies, and undergo different tranfmigrations. Others
reprefent Pythagoras's dodrine, as if the tranfmigration of fouls
were to Gommence immediately upon their departure out of the
body, and that after having accomplilhed the courfe of tranfmi-
grations appointed them-, they fhould be refunded into the uni-
verfal foul.
Some authors who in this as well as other Inftances affix Chri-
ftian ideas to the paffages they meet with in Pagan authors, have
reprefented this refufion of the foul as a ftate of complete happi-
nefs, peculiar to the fouls of good men, andconfifting in the bea-
tific vifion and enjoyment of the Deity. But this is not the idea
the Pagan writers themfelves give us of it. The learned and in-
genious author of the Critical Enquiry, 6cc. whom I liave before
referred to, has proved by exprefs teflimonies, that this refufion of
the foul was not fuppofed to be a privilege peculiar to the righ-
teous and innocent ; that all fouls without diftincflion were to be
abforbed at length into the univerfal foul, and that this refufion
was of a phyfjcal nature, not properly for any moral purpofe or
defign, but to furnifh the " anima mundi" with materials for the
reprodudlion and renovation of things (/ ). If there were any hab-
pinefs for departed fouls, it was to be before the refufion, whicii
was fuppofed to put an end to their feparate individual exifl-
ence («). Seneca has a remarkable pafTage in his 7ad epiflle,
which
(/) See Critical Enquiry into the Opinipnsof the Anticnts, &c. chap. 5.
(m) They explained it, as an eminent writer obfcrves, by a bottle filled with
fui-water, which, fwimming a while upon the ocean, docs upon the bottle's
breaking
342 TJje DoSlrine of Pythagoras concerning the Part III.
which it is proper to mention here. " Magnus animus Deo
" pareat, et quicquid lex univerfi jubct fine cundlatione patiatur.
" Aut in meUorem emittitur vitam, kicidius tranquilHufque inter
*' divina manfurus, aut certe fine ullo futurus incommodo, na-
" turae fi.133 remifccbitur, et revertitur in totum." Where he re-
prefents it as the part of a great mind chearfully to fiibinit to what
the law of the univcrfe requires, and that cither he fliall go free
into a better life, where he fliall remain in a luminous and ferene
abode among the gods, or he fhall without any evil or incon-
venience be remingled with his nature, and return into the whole.
The utmofl that he fays of this re-union to the whole, is that the
foul fliall then be without any evil or inconvenience, " animus fine
" ullo futurus incommodo," which, as the learned autlior of the
Enquiry obferves, is the account he elfcwhere gives of death, on
fiippofition of its being an extindlion of our individual exiftence.
" Death, fays he, brings no evil or inconvenience along witli it;
breaking mingle with the common mafs. To this piirpofe he cites a remarkable
palliige from Ganxndiis, in which that very learned author fays, " Vi\ ulli fiicrc
" (qua- humance mentis caligo et imbccilliras eft) qui non inciderint in crrorem
" ilium de refufione in animam mundi. Nimirum ficut exiftiraarunt fmgulorum
" aninias particulas cffe animx mundanx, quarum quae libet fuo corpore, ut aqua
" vafe inchiditur, itaet reputarunt unnmquamque animam, corpore diflbluto, quafi
" diffi;'.(flo vafe cfRuere, atque anima: mundi c qua dedufla fuait iterum uniri."
Sec divine Legation, vol. II. book iii. feft. 4. p. 205, 206. 4th edition. TertuUian
iiiJced tells us, that the Egyptian Hermes taught that the foul, when departed
from the body, is not refunded into the nature of the univcrfe, but retains its di-
llinift determinate exiftence. " Mercurius vEgyptius animam digrcllani a corpore
" non refundi in naturam univerfi, fed manerc dcterminatam." Tertnl. de Anima,
cap. 33. But befidcs that Trifinegiftus's writings are of fufpecflfdnuthoiity,. it is
here plainly implied, that if the human foul was refunded into the univcrfal fori,
which certainly was the common opinion of the Pagan philofnphcrs, it'woiild
Jofe its ioJivicJual cxiftence,
" for
Chap. IV. Immortality of the SctiJ and a future State confidercd. 343
" for that mufl have an exigence which is fubjedl to any incon-
" venience." " Mors nullum habet incommodum : elTe enini
*' debet aliquid, cujus fit incommodum." Epift. 34. Pythagoras
indeed fuppofed, as the Stoics did afterwards, that all things that
were done in the former world were to be done again, when the
foul of the univcrfe was to go forth into new produdlions, and
form another world at flated periodical revolutions, or at the end
of the great year : but this was the cffed of a phyfical neceihty,
and without any refpedl in a way of moral retribution to the good
or evil aftions which had been done in the former world.
I think therefore it may be juftly faid, that the dodrine of the
immortality of the foul in the fenfe in which Pythagoras taught
it, could be of no great advantage to mankind, with regard to the
belief of a future (late of rewards and punifhments. And though
thofe of his fchool generally fo far aflerted the immortality of the
foul as to maintain that it did not die with the body, but lived
to animate other bodies, yet fome of them fuppofed death to be
common to the foul and body, and expreffed themfelves in a man-
ner which has a near affinity with the dodrine of Epicurus. This
is what the learned author of the Critical Enquiry has fl:iewn, to
whom I refer the reader (//).
I fliall conclude what relates to Pythagoras with obferving, that
we cannot lay any ftrefs upon the dodrines he publickly taught,
as containing his real fentimcnts, becaufe he made no fcruple of
^ji) See the Critical Enquiry, Zk. chap. i. p, 4, 5, 6. ift. edit.
impofiiig
344 Socrates taught the Immortality of Part III.
impofing upon the people things which he himfelf could not but
know were falfe, and which, we may be fure, he did not him-
felf believe. Several inftances of his frauds might be produced;
but I (hall only mention one relating to his celebrated dodtrine of
the tranfmigration of fouls. Not content with affirming that doc-
trine in general, he pretended to mention the feveral tranfmigra-
tions which he himfelf had undergone, and to name the parti-
cular perfons whom his foul had animated in a fucceflion of fome
ages, and that he himfelf had a diftin(2; remembrance of it.
Let us next proceed to take fome notice of Socrates and Plato,
who are generally regarded as the principal of the antient Pagan
philofophers before the coming of our Saviour, who taught the
immortality of the foul and a future fi:ate. As to Socrates, the
learned Bifhop of Gloucfler acknowledges that he really believed
not only the immortality of the foul, but a flate of future rewards
«nd puniflimcnts, though he feems not willing to allow that any
of the other antient philofophers believed it (u). His fentiments
are mod fully reprefented in Plato's Pha:do, which contains the
difcourfe he had with his friends the laft day of his life, and in
which he fets himfelf to prove the immortality of the foul. And
though it is probable that Plato in this dialogue very much en-
larges upon what Socrates then faid to his friends and difciples,
yet he had too great a regard to decency to put any thing upon
him on fuch an occafion, but what was agreeable to his known
fentiments. And if he had done fo, others would not have fiilcd
(5) Divine Legation of Mofes, &c. vol.11, book iii. fttfl. 4. p. 235. 4th edit,
i to
chap. IV. the Soul and a future State. 34^
to expofe him for it. The flime may be faid of Socrates's apology
as delivered by Plato.
la the beginning of tlie Pha?do Socrates declares to Ccbes and
the others who then came to fee him, that did he not tliink that
he lliould go to wife and juft Gods, and to men that had de-
parted this life, and who were better than thofe who were then
living upon the earth, it would be wrong in him not to be
troubled at death ; " but know alfuredly, fays he, that I hope I
" am now going to good men, though this I would not take
•' upon me peremptorily to alTcrt : but that I fliall go to the gods,
" lords that are abfolutely good, this, if I can affirm any thing
" of this kind, I would certainly affirm. And for this reafon I do
" not take it ill that I am to die, as otherwife I fliould do ; but
*' am in good hope that there is fomething remaining for thofe
" that are dead, and that (as it hath been faid of old) it will then
" be much better for good than for bad men." He then propofes
to offer reafons, why a man that had all his life applied himfelf to
philofophy fliould expedl death with confidence, and fliould en-
tertain good hope that he fliould obtain the befl of good things
after his departure out of this life (/>).
In other parts of that dialogue Socrates fays excellent things
concerning the happinefs to be enjoyed in a future flate. But
then he feems to regard this as the fpecial privilege of thofe who
having an earncfl thirfl: after knowledge addicted themfelves to
(/) Plato Oper. p. 377. H. 378. A, B. edit. Lagd.
Vol II. Y y the
34<5 Socrjii's taught the Immortality of Pait TIT.
the ftiuly of philofopby. He talkb of tl)e foul's [^oiiig at its depar-
ture hence, " into a place hke itfclf, noble, pure, invifible, to a
•' wife and good God, whither, fays he, if it pleafes God, my
" foul (hall foon go (^)."' And again, that " the foul which
" gives itfelf up to the ftudy of wifdoni and philofophy, and lives
" abftrafted from the body, goes at death to that which is like
" itfelf, divine, immortal, wife, to which when it arrives, it fliall
" be happy, freed from error, ignorance, fears, diforderly loves,
" ccyolcav epanuv, and other human evils, and lives, as is faid of
" the initiated, the reft of its life with the gods (r)." He adds,
that they who only minded the body and its appetites and plea-
fures, having fomcthing in them ponderous and earthy, fliall after
tlieir departure out of the body be drawn down to the earth, and
hover about the fepulchres, being punifhcd for their former ill-
fpent life, rrv ■St-tir.v Tivsaai 'rvi -rrprfpas Toomfy till having ftill a
hankering after corporeal nature they enter again into bodies.
Anted to their former manners: thofe who were wholly given to
tlieir belly and to intemperance, enter into the bodies of afles and
other like beafts ; the tyrannical, iniuriou?, and rapacious into the
bodies ofwolve?, hawks, kites, &c. (i) ; but that thofe of them
are the happieft and go to the beft place, who diligently praflife
the popular and civil virtue, which is called temperance and ju-
ftice, having acquired it by cuftom and exercife, without philo-
fophy and intelleift. And to the queftion, how are thefe the hnp-
(y) Plato Oper. p. 3 85. G. edit. Lugd.
(;•) Ibid. p. 386. A.
{s) Ibid. p. 386. B, C, D.
pieft?
Chap. IV. the Soul and a future State. 347
pieft? Socrates anfwers, that " they go into the bodies of ani-
" mals of a mild and focial kind, and who have fome fort of
" polity among them, fuch as bees, ants, &c. or into human bo-
" dies, of a like kind with their own, and fo become men of mo-
" deration and fobriety. But that no man is allowed to be ad-
" mitted to the fellowHiip of the gods, but he that being a
" lover of knowledge, hath applied himfclf to philofophy, and
" departed hence altogether pure (/)." He afterwards in the con-
clufion of that difcourfe, fi\ys, that " they who live holy and
" excellent lives, being freed from thefe earthly places as from
" prifons, afcend to a pure region above the earth, where they
" dwell : and thofe of them who were fufficicntly purged by phi-
" lofophy live all their time without bodies, and afcend to flill
" more beautiful habitations (ti)."
It appears then from this account of Socrates's fentiraents that
he had very high ideas of the happinefs which, he fuppofed,
would be provided after death for fome fouls, efpecially the fouls
of thofe who had applied themfelves to the ftudy of wifdom and
philofophy, who went immediately to the gods: yet with refpedl
to the bulk of mankind, whether good or bad, he held the tranf-
migrationof fouls, with this only difference, that bad and vicious
men, alter having hovered a while difconfolate about the fe-
pulchres, pafs into the bodies of animals of like difpofitions with
their own, wolves, kites, foxes, afles, &c. But the common
• {t) Plato Oper. 386. E, F.
(;/) Ibid. p. 400.
Y y a fort
-^8 Socrates taught the Immorta-ity of Pr.rt III.
fort of good men, who had exercifed juftice and temperance, go
into the bodies of animals of a more gentle and civil kind, or re-
turned into human bodies, fuch as they had before. A mighty
encouragement this to the pradice of virtue, that they who ap-
plied themfelves to it were to have the privilege of animating the
bodies of ants or bees, and at the utmoft they were to return to
tlie labours and offices of this mortal life : and on the other hand,
the wicked had nothing elfe to fear, but the being thruft into the
bodies of animals fuited to their own natures, and in which they
might have it in theu' power to gratify their darling lufls and ap-
petites under another form.
Cicero gives a fummary account of Socratcs's dodrine in the
Pha;do, in which he does not confine himfelf to his expreflions,
but reprefents the general fenfe and defign of them to this pur-
pofe : That when the fouls of men depart out of their bodies they
<T0 two difi'erent ways: to thole who beins; vviioUy abandoned to
their corrupt lufts and appetites, have contaminated themfelves
with vices, whether of a public or private nature, a devious road
is appointed, fecluded fioni the council of the gods : but to them
who have preferved themfelves chafte and uncorrupt, free from
the contagion of their bodies, and who in human bodies have
imitated the life of the gods, an eafy way lies open for returning
to thofe from whom they came {v).
Socrates,
(v) " Itn cnliTv cenftbat, itrKiiie cnfTeruit : duas eflt vias, duplicefquc cuifiis
•' animoruni c corpore exccdcntium. Nam qui fe humanis vitiis contamina-
" Ykficat, et k lotos libidinibus dtdirtcat, quibus cxcacati, vcl doratflitis > itiis
Chap. IV. the Scul and a futuye State, 3^0
Socrates, in the apology he makes to his judges, exprefTes his
hope that it would be better for him that he was put to death : and
he tells them, that this one thing ought to be confidered as a cer-
tain truth, that no evil can befal a good man, whether living or
dying, aor fhall his affairs be ever negle(5ted by the gods. Cicero
renders it thus; " Id unum cogitare verum effe, ncc cuiquam
" bono mali quicquam evenire pofTe, ncc vivo nee mortuo : nee
" unquam ejus res a diis immortalibus negligentur (-v)." And
this general affertion leems to be the utmofl: that a man can attain
to, by the mere light of reafon and philofophy, without the affifl-
ance of divine revelation.
What has been faid of Socrates may in a great meafure be ap-
plied to Plato the mod eminent of his difciples : the dialoa;ues in
which he introduces Socrates difcourfing concerning the immor-
tality of the foul and a future ftate, are generally and I think
iuftly regarded, as containing not only Socratcs's fentiments but
his own. The fame dod:rine in this rcfpedl runs through all
Plato's work?, under whatfoever clafs we range them, whether as
efoteric or exoteric. The antients as well as moderns have ce-
nerally entertained this notion of them. Cicero fays, that Plato
" atque flaghiis fe inquinaviflent, vd republica violanda fraudes inexpiabiles con-
" ccpilFent, his deviiim quoddatn iter efle, fcclufum a concilio deorum ; qui
" autem fe intcgros caftofquc fervaviflTent, quibufque elTct minuma cum corpori-
" bus contagio, fdeque ab his fcmper fevocavilTent, efTcntque in corporibus hu«
" manis vitam imitati dcoium, his ad illos a quibus eflent profefti, rcditum fa-
" cilein patere." 'I'lifcul. Difput. lib. i. cap. 30.
(jc) Ibid. cap. 4 i .
feems
3 )-o Plato held the Immortality of Part III.
fcems to have dcfi^ncd to convince others of the immortahtj of
the foul by the reafons v/hich he has offered : but that, however
this might be, he feems certainly to have been perfuaded of it
himfelf. " Tot rationes attulit, ut velle cajteri?, fibi certe per-
*' fiiafilTe videatur ()')." He often fpeaks of a future ftate of re-
wards and punifhments in the grofs popular Icnfe, and talks of
the judges in Hades, of Tartarus and Styx, Cocytus, Acheron
and Pyriphlegethon. So he docs in his Gorgias, in his tenth Re-
public, and even in his Phacdo. This he did in a way of accom-
modation to the popular notions. He generally introduces them
as y.o'Oa/, fables, i.e. fabulous reprefentations and traditions ; and
it appears from other paflages in his works, that he did not him-
felf believe them in the literal fenfe: but it does not follow from
this, that therefore he did not believe future rewards or punifh-
ments. There are fome paffages which fcem to fliew that he be-
lieved them in a more refined fcnfe. In his Thejctetus having
obferv^ed, that we fhould ufe our utmofl: endeavours to be as like
God as pofllble ; and that this likencfs to God confifts in being
jufl: and holy, together with prudence; and that nothing is more
like God than he that is the juftcft among men, he adds, " if we
" Ihould fay, that as to bad men, if they be not freed from their
" depravity in this life, that place v;hich is pure from evil will
*' not receive them when they die, and tiiat they ihall carry with
" them the fimilitude of their former life and manners ; and being
" evil themfelves fliall be afTociated to them that are evil : the
" crafty and malicious when they hear thcfc things will treat
0') Tufcul. Difput, lib. i. cap. 21.
" them
Cliap. IV. tie Soul and a future State. 351
" them as the ravings of mad mcn(«)." Plato's fcntiments here
are noble, but he intimates that they met with little credit or
regard. A learned author, who is net very favourable to that
philolbpher, reckons the Thesetetus from whence this paflage is
taken amoiig his Efoterics, which are fuppofed to contain Ijis real
opinions. The fame dodlrine is taught in his tenth Republic,
which the fame author fuppofes to be of the popular and exoteric
kind. He there introduces Socrates as faying; " in the firfl: place
" you will grant me this, that it is not concealed from the gods,
" v^hat fort of a man any one is, whether juft or unjuft; and if
" this be not concealed from them, the one is beloved of God or
" of tlie gods [for the word ;r£c;^iA>i5 there ufcd may be tranflated
" either way, as he had fpoken of the gods juft before] the other
" hated of God or of the gods, S-gsjocio-??. And fliall we not ac-
" knowledge that to him that is beloved of God, whatfoever
" things are done by the gods are the beft that can be, except
" fome necefTary evil come upon him from a fm he was formerly
" guilty of? It mufi: therefore be fuppofed concerning the juft
" man, that if he be in poverty or fickncfs, or under any of
" thofe things which are accounted evils, thefe things fliall in
" the iflue be for good, either when he is living or after he is
" dead. For that man fhall never be negleded by the gods,
" who earneftly defires to become juft; and applying himfelf to
" the pradices of virtue, endeavours to be made like to God as
" far as is poffible for a man to be :" he adds, that " the con-
" trary of all this muft be concluded concerning the unjull man."
{r) Pl.ito Opcr. p. 128. C. 129. A. edit. Liigd.
He
352 ri.ito beU the Immortality of Part III.
He afterwards obfjrvcs, tliat bad men, when once they are found
out to be fo, for they may conceal their vices for a while, incur
the contempt and hatred of their fellow-citizens, and are e>:-
pofed to many calamities in this life: and on the other hand, he
takes notice of the " rewards and gifts which arc conferred upon
' the jufl man, whilft he is yet alive, both by gods and men,
' befides thofe good things which are contained in righteoufnefs
' or virtue itfelf." He adds, that " thefe, viz. the punifhments
' of the wicked, and rewards of good men in this life which
' he had mentioned, are nothing either in number or grcatnefs
' to thofe which remain for each of them after death {a)." This
is a remarkable paflage, in which he afferts rewards for good
men, and punillimcnts for bad, both in this life and after death,
diftindl from what are contained in the nature of virtue and vice
itfelf, and fuppofes the rewards and punifhments of another life
to be much greater than any in this. He then goes on to re-
late the famous ftory of Erces Armenius, who having fallen in
battle, and continued among the dead feveral days, on the twelfth
day after, when they were going to bury him, revived, and gave
an account of the things he had feen in the other world, the re-
wards beftowed upon good men, and the punifhments inflidled
on the wicked. But it is to bo obfcrved that in the account Plato
gives of this, he makes both the one and the other, except a few
who were extremely wicked and incorrigible, to return again after
(kIw. Plat. Opcr. p. 518. E. F.
7 a certain
Chap. IV. the Soul and a future State. 3^3
a certain time into other bodies of men or beafts, fuch as were
fuitable to them, or which they themfelves fliould chufe (/>).
To this may be added what he faith at the latter end of his
tenth book of laws, where he obferves, that the foul being ap-
pointed fometimes to one body, fometimes to another, runs through
all kinds of tranfmutations : and the only thing that remains for
him to do who orders thefe matters as it were by lot, is to re-
move thofe of better manners to a better place, thofe of worfe
manners to a worfe, as is proper for every one, that each may re-
ceive that portion which is mofl fuitable to him(£'). He after-
wards adds, that according to the different qualities of men's fouls,
and their anions, they have different abodes afligned them, and
undergo divers changes according to the law and order of fate;
that " thofe who have been guilty of fmaller fins do not fink fo
" deep, but wander about near the furface of the region ; but
*' they that have finned more frequently and more heinoufly,
** fhall fall into the depth, and into thofe lower places which are
" called Hades, and by other names of the like kind, which,
" both the living, and they that have departed out of their bo-
** dies, are afraid and dream of (<:/)." And after fome other
** things to the fame purpofe, he adds, " this, O young man,
" who thinkeft the gods take no notice of thee, this is the judg-
" ment of the gods who dwell in heaven -, that he that is bad
{b) Plat. Opcr. p. 521.
(<■) Ibid. p. 672. A.
{J) Ibid. D.
Vol. II. Z z '^ fliouIJ
3 5*4 Plato held the Immortaltty of Part III.
" fhould go to the iv. '1? which are bad, and he that Is better to
" better fou'': both in this lite and at death. Wherefore neither
" do th ui, nor i,t .\ny other, i-xpedt to be fo lucky as to efcape
" this judgment of the gods. For thcu flialt never be negledled
" or pais unnoticed, neither if thou rtioaldeft be fo fmall as to
" hide thyfolf in the lowefl: part of the earth, nor if thou fliouldeft
" take thy flight as high as heaven, but flialt fuffer a fuitable
" punilhment, either whilfl thou remainefl here, or when thou
" goeft to Hades, or art tranfported to fome wilder and more
" horrid place (J)."
I think from the paiTages which have been produced, to whicfi
others miglit be added, it fufficiently appears that Plato, as well
as his marter Socrates, taught the immortality of the foul, and a
ftate of future rewards and punlHiments. But it is' to be obferved
that neither of them pretended to have found this out merely by
the force of their own reafon, but frequently reprefent it as a
matter of very antient tradition, which they endeavoured to fup-
port and improve. They both of them fcem to have believed in
general that there would be a difference made in a future ftate be-
tween good and bad men, and that the one fhould be in a greater
or Icfs degree rewarded, and the other puniflied. But they
greatly v/eakened and obfcured that dodlrine by mixing with it
that of the tranfmigration of fouls and other fiiftions, as well as
(d) Ob ya^ aueMirtni wotf utt auTri! [_Aixri;'} ix ^'''w c/Jt^fo^ i-v ^"^ Kara to Tnf yiff
fi'av, (iV ivdait fih^y, lire xa) iv aSa Jia7rc(fi5ei{ thi kcu tstwv tx'f a-/ftuT»fO» tn flia-
KSjuiSiif ToVov, Plato Opcr. 672. F.
by
Chap. rV. the Sml and a future State. 3 jj*
by fometimes talking very waveringly and uncertainly about it.
And it is remarkable, that though there were feveral (c€is of phi-
lolbphers, ^^•hich profefled to derive their original from Socrate?,
fcarce any of them taught the immortality of the foul as the doc-
trine of their fchools, except Plato and his difciples, and many
even of thefe treated it as abfolutcly uncertain.
That great man Cicero was a mighty admirer of Plato, and may
be juftly reckoned among the moft eminent of thofe philofophcrs,
who argued for the immortality of the foul. For though, ac-
cording to the cuftom of the new academy, of which fed he was,
he difputed pro and con upon every fubjcdl, yet it appears from
feveral pafliiges in his works, that his judgment flrongly inclined
him to that opinion (f ), as at leaft more probable than the contrary.
He does not merely mention this in fome fingle detached pafTages,
but he argues the matter at large, in one of the finefl: pieces anti-
quity has left us. He argues from the nature of the foul, and its
uncompounded and indivilible effence, of a quite different kind
from thefe common elementary natures, from its wonderful powers
and faculties, which have fomcthing divine in them, and incom-
patible with fluggilh matter, from the ardent thirft after immor-
(e) The learned Dr. Middleton, in his Life of Cicero, obferves, that " he held
'* the immortality of the foul, and its fcparate exifrencc after death, in a ftate of
" happincfi or mifer.'." But in the latter part of this anirtion,- that ingenious
wri'.er fcems to be miftakcn : for Cicero did not hold that any feparate foal was
in a fta'.e of mifcry after death. His whole argument in the fi:ft book of liis Tilf-
culan Difpmations turns upon this point, that cither the foul fhall be extinguifheJ
at death ; or if it furvives, which is what he endeavours to prove, it fliall be hjippy.
Future mifery and torments he entirely rcjefts. But this (liall be coufidered uioic
particularly afterwards.
Z z 2 tality
35^ Cicero argued for the Immortality of the Sou!, Pait III.
tality natural to the human mind, but which is moft confpicuous
in the moft exalted fouls, and from fome other topics, which the
reader may fee in the firfl: book of his Tufculan Difputations. He
fpeaks to the fame purpofe in his Cato Major, and in his Som-
nium Scipionis, and on feveral other occafions. It is true, there
are two or three paHages in his epifUes to his friends, in which
he fecms to exprefs himfelf in a dilterent llrain. In an epiftle to
Torquatus, he comforts himfelf with this thought: " WhilftI fhall
" exift, I fliall not be troubled at any thing, fince 1 have no fault
" to charge myfclf with ; and if I fhall not exift, I (hall be de-
" prived of all fenfe," — " Nee enim dum ero, angar ullarej cum
" omni caream culpa; et fi non ero, fenfu omni carebo (/)."
In another cpiflle to the fame Torquatus, he tells hin->, that " if
" he was called to depart out of this life, he fliould not be
" fnatched from that republic he would defire to continue ir>,
" efpccially fincc he fhould then be without any fenfe." — " De-
" inde quod mihi ad confolandum commune tecum eft, fi jam
♦' vocer ad exitum vitae, non ab ea rcpublica avellar qua caren-
" dum effe doleam, pra^fertim cum id fine ullo fenfu fit futu-
" rum [g)." And in an epiftle to L. Mefcinius, he fays, death
ought to be defpifed, or even wiHied for, becaufe it will be
void of all fenfe. " Propterea quod nullum fenfum clTct habi-
•' tura." And in an epiftle to Toraniu?, he gives it as a rcafon
for bearing with moderation whatfoever fliould happen, that death
is the end of all things. " Una ratio videtur, quicquid evenak
(/) Cic. Epift. lib. vi. cpift. 3.
(^) Ibid, epift. 4.
" fcrre
Chap, rv, but nvas not aliaays confijlent with himfelf. ^^y
*' ferre moderate, prselertiin cum omnium rerum mors fit extre-
" mum (/')•" But I think it would be carrying it too far to con-
clude, from a few (liort hints thrown out occafionally in letters
written in hafle, that Cicero's real opinion was that the foul died
with the body, when he had fo often given his reafons for the
contrary, in books where he profedcdly treats on that fubjedt.
The perfons he writ to were probably Epicureans j fuch was Tor-
quatus ; and tiie lame may be fuppofed of tiie reft, it being then
the fafliionable opinion among the gentlemen of Rome. The
letters were written in a political way, relating to the then melan-
choly ftate of the republic, and it would have been abfurd, what-
ever Cicero's private opinion might have been, to have offered
confolations to Epicureans, drawn from the hope of a happy
cxiftence after death. But though I think it cannot be abfolutely
concluded from thofe paflages that Cicero was in his real fenti-
ments againft the immortality of the foul, yet it is not probable
that he would have expreffed himfelf in the manner he has done
in thofe letters, if he had been uniform and fteady in the belief of
it. It may well be granted, that he had doubts in his mind con-
cerning it, and therefore in the uncertainty he was under expreffed
himfelf differently at different times.
There is another philofopher of great note, whom I fhall here
mention, though he lived after Chriftianity had made fome pro-
grefs in the world, and therefore does not come fo properly under
our prefent confideration ; and that is Plutarch, who was ex-
(';) Cic. F.pifl. lib. vi. cplrt. 21.
trcmely
35S PititarclSi S^'Utitmnts conceni'mg Part 11
tremely well vcrfcd in the wiitings of the philofophers wlio hau
flourifhed before his time. He not only reprefcnts the doftrine of
the immortality of the foul and a future ftate as a matter of antient
tradition, and which was countenanced by the laws, from which
we ought not to recede (/), but he produces reafons for it, efpe-
cially in his excellent treatii'c De Scrd Numinis vindidla. He gives
it as the fum of his difcourfc, that the Deity excrcifeth an infpec-
tion over us, and diftributeth to us according to our deferts : and
that from thence it follows, that fouls are either altogether incor-
ruptible and immortal, or that they remain for fome time after
death. He adds, that it would fuppofe God to be meanly and
idly employed in concerning himfelf fo much about us, if we had
nothing divine within, or which refembleth his own perfedlions,
nothing that is flable and firm, but were only like leaves, which,
as Homer fpeaks, witlier and fall in a fliort time. And he repre-
fents it as abfurd to imagine that fouls are made only to blof-
fom and flourifli for a day in a tender and delicate body of flefli,
and then to be immediately extinguiflied on every flight occa-
fion [k). He argues farther, that if the fouls of the deceafed va-
nifli like clouds or fmoke, the oracle of Apollo would never have
appointed propitiations to be made for the dead, and honours to be
rendered to them. And he declares, that the fame reafons confirm
the providence of God, and the permanency of the human foul ;
and that the one of thefe cannot be maintained, if the other be
denied. 'En ?<r' AJ^®- 0 -r? S-ja t '^^qvaclv afxci. ^ r ^g.fj.ovh r
(;■) Plut. Confol. ad uxorcm, Opcr. torn. II. p. 612. edit. Xyi.
(<•) Ibid. p. 560. B, C.
Chap. IV. the Immortality of the Boiil. ^f^
dv^^TTim 4"/^"* (ieSxioov, ^ SrxTSooy hX. ec^'Lv aVoAJTai' dveupZvra. Srcc'
Tsoov (/). He adds, " Now then, fince the foul exiileth after
" death, it is probable that it partakes both of rewards and punifli-
" ments : for in tills li/a the foul is in a flate of conflidl, like a
" wreftler, but when it has finiflied its conilidl, it receives fuitable
" retributions." Yet in what follows, he intimates that thele
things were not commonly believed. And, indeed, he himfelf is
far from being confident and uniform on this head : for though the
pafTages now produced from him have a fair afpedl, there are other
paflages in his works which have a contrary appearance, as I flaall
have occafion to fliew.
(/) Plut. Confol. ad uxoiem, Oper. torn. II. p. 560. D, F. edit. Xyl.
c 'H A p:
360 ll.ie Philcfophers placed the Immortality' of Part IIL
CHAP. V.
Thofe of the antient phtlojlphers who argued for the immortality of
the Jouly placed it on 'wrong foundations, and mixed things -with
it which weakened the belief of it. Some of them ajferted, that
the foul is immortal, as being a portion of the Divine Effence.
They univerfally held the prce-exiflence of the human foul, and
laid the chief Jlrefs upon this for proving its immortality. Their
doctrine of the traiif migration of fouls was a great corruption of
the true doSlrine of a future fiate. Thofe who faid the higheji
things of future lappinefs, confidered it as confined chiefly to
perfons of eminence, or to thofe of philofophical minds, and af-
forded fmall encouragement to the common kind of pious and vir-
tuous perfons. The rewards of Elyjium were but temporary,
and of a fsort duration : and even the happinefs of thofe privi-
leged fouls, who were fuppofed to be admitted not merely into
Elyfium, but into heaven, was 7iot everlajling in the flriB and
proper fenfe. The Go/pel do^rinc of eternal life to all good
and righteous perfons was not taught by the antient Pagan philo-
fophers.
HAVING endeavoured to lay before the reader the lenti-
ments of thofe Pagan philofophers, who are generally
looked upon as having been the ableft: aflcrters of the immortality
of the foul and a future ftate, I fhall now make fome obfcrvations,
by which it may appear how far their inflrudlions were to be
J depended
Chap. V. the Soul oti turong Foundations. ^61
depended upon, and were of real fervice to mankind, with regard
to this important article.
And the firft thing I would obferve is, that the bed of thofe
philofophers placed it on wrong foundations, or mixed things
with it, which tended greatly to weaken the belief or defeat the
influence of it. This appears partly from what has been already
obferved. Some of them, as the Pythagoreans, argued for the
foul's immortality, becaufe the divine nature from which it is
taken, and of which it is a detached part or portion immerfed in
a human body, is immortal. This certainly was putting it on a
falfe foundation, and building it upon a notion abfurd in itfelf,
and which, if purfued to its juft confequences, tends to the fub-
verfion of all religion, by confounding God and the creature, and
making them both of the fame nature and eiTcnce. A celebrated
author has argued, from the notion which the Pythagoreans and
many other antient philofophers had of the foul's being a part of
God, that they did not and could not really believe a future {late
of rewards and punifliments. And, indeed, it feems to be a na-
tural confequcnce of that notion, that at leafl: there could be no
future punifliments. But men do not always fee and acknow-
ledge the confequences of their own principles. And they might
as reafonably fuppofe this notion to be reconcilc.:b!e to future
rewards and puniHiments, as to prefcnt ones. For fmce they
fuppofcd, that the foul, though it be a part of God, > is capable in
this life of being both rewarded and puniflied ; and that whilfl it
is here in this body, it is fubjedl to vice, ignorance, and a variety
Vol. II. A a a of
3^2 The Philofophen placed the Immortality of Part III.
of evils (/«) ; I lee no rtafon why it might not be fuppofed to be
alfo obnoxious to punKljinents in a future ftate : for the abUirdity
is equal in the one cafe as in the other.
The notion of the foul's being a portion of the Divine ElTence
was common to other philofophcrs, as well as the Pythagoreans.
It has been already fliewn, that this was the opinion of tlie Stoics,
though they feem not to have argued the foul's immortality from
it. What were Plato's fcntiments on this head the learned are not
agreed. Plutarch, in his Platonic queftions, gives it as Plato's
opinion, That " the foul, being partaker of underftanding, reafon,
" and harmony, is not the work of God only, but alfo a part of
" him ; and is not made by him, but from him, and out of him. *
'Oi/x. tpyov e<r' '^^ ^''^ /^.o^i', aAAa ^ /xfp@-, uS' V3r PZ/rK, a?^ air
ifjiv, so e^ aijjTV ytyoviv («)• ^^^ ^^^ hvc\& author feems elfewhere
to reprefent Plato's opinion otherwife. Speaking of the rational
foul,
(m) The abfurdity of this is well expofed by Velleius the Epicurean, in Cicero's
fiift book De Nat. Deer. cap. xj. p. 28. edit. Davis.
(«) Plutarch. Opera, torn. II. p. looi. edit. Xyl. Francof. 1620. A very
able and learned writer, who is a zealous advocate for the antient philofophcrs, ob-
ferves, " That the Ei;yptians imagined the foul to be a part or portion of God
" himfelf, a fection of God's fubftance, which .ilw.iys did and alwa\-s muft exift.
" And that this was the philofophic notion from the time of Pythagoras among the
" Greeks;" and that " he made the foul to be a part of the to h." See Dr. Sykes's
Principles arid Connexion of Natural and Revealed Reliqion, chap. xiv. p. 392.
394. By reprefenting it as the philofophic notion from the time of Pythagoras
among the Greeks, he feems to fuppofe that it was the doiflrine of Plato himfelf.
And if this be a true reprefentaiion, it is a remarkable inllance to fliew how much
philofophers of the greateft abilities were miflaken in points of high confequcnce.
Nor can I fee how tliia ingenious author could juAly affirm, as he has done, that io
what rcl.ites to the Deity, " Thofe who followed the mere li^lu of nature (by
" whom
Chap. V. the Soul on lorong Foundations. 363
foul, he gives It as the opinion of Pythagoras and Plato, that " it
" is immortal, and that it is not God,, but the work of the eternal
" God." Kal •y) T -^^xw a ^eiv a.h>^ e^yov T» diS^tH ^e'ti Cira^x^iv.
And it is obfervable that he had declared a few lines before, that
Pythagoras and Plato held that the human foul is immortal ; be-
caufe " when it departs out of the body, it recedes to the foul of
" the univerfe, to that which is of the fame kind or nature with
" it." Upoi TO ofji.oy€vk. It is not eafy to reconcile thefe things.
But it is proper to obferve, that the foul of the world was not the
abfolutely Supreme God in the Platonic, though it was fo in the
Stoic fyilem (0). Plotinus reprefents the human foul, as o/JLceiS^n;,
of the fame fpccies with the mundane foul, which is his third hy-
poftafis, and which he calls the eldeft fifter of our human fouls (/>).
" whom he particularly underftands the philofophers) feem to be very clear, and
" made ufe of the faculties God had given them to great and good purpofes :" and
that " they clofely purfued truth in what they difccrned about the Governor of the
" univerfe." Ibid. p. 362. 370.
(0) Plato reprefents the Supreme God, the to aya^lv, as of a mofl Angular and
tranfcendent nature, not to be named or comprehended. There is a remarkable
paflage at the latter end of his fixth republic, the purport of which is this. That
" as the fun not only gives the power of being feen to the things which are feen,
" but is .ilfo the caufe of their generation, growth, and nutrition, but is not the
" generation itfelf ; in like manner, God with rcfpcft to the things that are known,
" is not only the caufe of their being known, but alfo of their eflTence and exiftence,
" yet is not that elTence, but is above effence in dignity and pjwcr *." Here he
feems plainly to diftinguidi the Supreme God from the world and all things in it.
He fuppofe= him to be the author and caufe of knowledge, wifdom, truth, and
good, of the cflence and exiAence of every thing, but that his elTencc is entirely
diftinft from that of every thing.
{p) Plotiu. Ennead. lib. i. c.'ip. 2.
• Platon, OpciJ, p. 479. C. cJlt. Lugd.
A a a a And
364 The Philofophers placed the ImmortaJltx of Part III.
And yet he does not feem to have fuppofed the liuman foul to be
in the flrid:efl: fenfe a part of that God whom he looked upon to
be abfolutely fupreme. But Dr, Cudworth is very right in the
cenfure he has pafled upon it, that " as this favours highly of
" philofophic pride and arrogance, to think fo magnificently of
" themfelves, and to equalize in a manner their own fouls with
" that mundane foul, fo was it a monftrous degradation of the
" third hypoflafis of their trinity." and which according to that
learned writer, they fuppofed to be of the fame nature, tho' in-
ferior to the firfb. He adds, that " they did doubtlefs therein
" defignedly lay a foundation for their polytheifm and creature-
" worfliip, for their cofmolatry, aftrolatry, and da^monolatry [q)."
But not to infift longer upon this, certain it is, that thofe phi-
lofophers who argued for the immortality of the foul univerfally
held its pre-exiftence before it animated the human body, and
laid the flrefs of the argument for its eternal exiflence after its de-
parture from the body, upon its exiflence from times imemorial,
or even from everlafting before its entrance into it. This is what
the very learned writer lafi: mentioned affirms concerning all the
antient affcrters of the foul's immortality. That " they held that
" it was not generated or made out of nothing, for then it might
" return to nothing. And therefore they commonly began
" with proving its prae-exiftence, proceeding thence to prove its
" permanency after death (;)." This is the method ufed by So-
(7) Cudworth's Intel. Syrt. p. 593.
{/■) Ibid. p. 38, 39. 2d. cdic.
crates
Chap. V. the Soul on wrong Fotindatiom. 3(^5
crates in Plato's Phaedo. He firft endeavours to prove, that the
foul exifted before its entrance into the body, and that the know-
ledge we now have is only a reminifcence of that which we had
in the prx-exiftent ftate, and then proceeds to prove that it fliall
exift after its being feparated from it(i)." Thus they argued for
the foul's immortality upon a principle which it was impoffible
for them to prove, and which really weakened the dodtrinc they
intended to eftablifli. Hence it was, that they who tliought there
was no reafon to believe that the foul had an exiftence before it
animated the human body, would not allow it furvived the body:
for it was, as Cicero reprefents it, " a principle univerfally ac-
" knowledged, that whatever is born and hath a beginning, muft
" alfo have an end." And upon this foundation it was, that the
famous Stoic Panastius, who was otherwife a great admirer of
Plato, denied the foul's immortality. " Volt enim," fays Cicero,
fpeaking of PanjEtius, *' quod nemo negat, quicquid natum fit
" interire : nafci autem animos, quod declarat eorum fimilitudo,
" qui procreantur, quas etiam in ingeniis, non folum in corpori-
" bus, appareat (/)." Cicero himfelf, in arguing for the immor-
tality of the foul, aflerts its pra;-exiftcnce from eternity. There is
a remarkable palTage to this purpofe in his book de Confolatione,
quoted by himfelf in the firft book of his Tufculan Difputations.
He there fays, that " the foul has not its original from the earth ;
" for that it has nothing in it mixed or compounded, or which
*' feems to be fprung or formed out of the earth, nothing watry,
{!.) Plato Oper. p. 384, 385. edit. Liigd.
(f) Tufcul. Difpat. lib. i. cap. 32. edit. Djvis.
" or.
366 The Philofophers placed the Immortality of Part III.
" or airy, or fiery in its conflitution : for in thefe natures there is
" nothing which hath the notion of memory and underftanding,
" which can both retain the things which are paft, and look for-
" ward to things future, and comprehend the prefent : which
" alone are divine : nor can it ever be found from whence thefe
" things fliould come to man but from God" I think this is very
juftiy argued : but afterwards he carries it farther : " Whatfoever
" thing is in us, fays he, which perceives, which underftands,
" which lives, which has a force and vigour of its own, it is ce-
" leftial and divine ; and for that reafon mufl of neceflity be eter-
" nal." " Ita quicquid eft iftud quod fentit, quod fapit, quod
" vivit, quod viget, coelefte ac divinum eft, ob eamque rem
" aeternum fit necefle eft («)." This looks as if Cicero thought
that the human foul was really and properly a part of the divine
eflence. But I think this does not neceflarily follow. It may
perhaps fignify no more, than that he calls the foul divine, to fig-
nify its near cognation to the Divine Nature, and the refemblance
it bears to it, and in oppofition to things which are of an earthly
and elementary nature. In the words immciiiately preceding thefe
laft mentioned, he exprefles himfelf thus ; " Singularis eft ii;itur
" quaedam natura atque vis animi, fejundla ab liis ufitatis notifque
" naturis." Where he intimates that the foul is of a fingualar
nature and force, different from thofe known and common na-
tures, that is, from earthly and corporeal things, of which he had
been fpeaking before: and in contradiftiniftion to which he calls
it divine. And he introduces this whole palTage, with obfcrving,
(:<) Tufcul. Difput. lib. i. cap. 27. p. 67. edit. D.ivis.
that
Chap. V. the Soul upon urong Foundations, ^6y
that befides the four elements of the material world, there is a
fifth nature, which was firft taught by Ariftotle, which belongs
to the gods and human fouls ; and intimates that this was the
opinion which he himfelf followed in the quotation produced
from his book de Confolatione. " Sin autem eft quinta quccdam
" natura ab Ariftotele indudla primum, hxc ct deorum eft et ani-
" morum. Hanc nos fententiam fecuti his ipfis verbis in Con-
" folatione hasc expreflimus." If Cicero had thought that Ari-
ftotle intended by the fifth nature the divine efTence properly fo
called, it could not have been faid, that he was the firft that in-
troduced it, for Pythagoras had taught it before : it is therefore
probably to be underftood of a nature diftindt both from thefe
lower elementary natures, and from the efTence of the Supreme
Being, though near a-kin to it and perfedlly like it j of which
both the gods, i. e. the inferior deities, and human fouls were
partakers. And this alfo feems to be plainly intimated in the
words with which he Concludes that fragment. " Nee vero Deus
*' ipfe, qui intelligitur a nobis alio modo intelligl poteft, nifi
" mens foluta quasdam et libera, fcgregata ab omni concretione
" mortali omnia fentiens et movens, ipfaque pra?dita motu
" fempiterna." Where ifnmediately after having faid, that the
foul is a celeftial and divine thing, and muft for that reafon be
eternal ; he adds, that " God himielf, as far as he is apprehended
" by us, can be conceived of no otherwife, than as a mind dil-
'* engaged from all mortal concretion or mixture, perceiving and
'* moving all things, and itfelf endued with an eternal motion."
Here he feems plainly to diftingufli God himfelf, " Deus ipfe,"
in the higheft fenl'c, from human fouls, wliich yet he fuppofes to
^ be
368 The Ph'ihfophers placed the Immortality of Part III.
be of a fimilar and congenial nature ; and a little before he repre-
fents vital activity, underftanding, invention, and memory, as
divine things or qualities, on the account of which the foul might
be called divine, as he chufes to exprefs it, or, as Euripides ven-
tures to call it, a God ; where he feems to look upon the calling
the foul a God to be a daring manner of expreflion even in a poet.
" Quae autem divina ? vigcre, fapere, invenire, meminifle. Ergo
'* quidem animus, qui (ut ego dico divinus) eft ut Euripides au-
det dicere Deus (;c)." And elfewhere having reprefented the foul
as much fuperior to the brute animals, and decerped from the
divine mind, he faith, " it can be compared with no other but
" with God himfelf, if it be lawful to fay fo." " Humanus
" autem animus, decerptus ex mente divina, cum alio nullo nifi
" cum ipfo Deo (in hoc fas eft dltla) comparari poteft ())•"
But if we fliould allow that it was not Cicero's opinion that the
human foul is in the ftridleft and propereft fenfe a part of God, yet
he certainly fuppofed that its nature is of the fame kind, and is
(jc) He there adds, that if God be either air or fire, " anima aut ignis," the foul
of mnn is the fame : for as that ccleftial nature is free from earth and moifture, fo
the foul of man is free from both thcfe : and that if there be a fifth nature, it
18 common both to gods and men. Tufcul. Difput. lib. i. cap. 26. p. 65, 66.
edit Davis.
(j) Tufcul. Difput. lib. V. cap. 13. p. 371. edit. Davis. Plato exprefTes him-
felf after the fame manner. In his tenth Republic, he talks of a man's endeavour-
ing, by applying himfelf to the pra(nice of vij-fuc, " to be made hkc to God, as
" far as it is podible for man to be *." And in his Philebns, he talks of taking
" our manners from God, as far as it is poflible fcrman to partake of God. Ka6'
• I'lato Ofcr. p. 51?, V. eJit. Liigd. See illo liis Tl.cilclui, ibid. p. 118. F.
like
Chap. V. the Soul on virong Foundations, 3.6^
like his naturally and neceflarily eternal. Thus he aflerts in the
paflage above cited. " Coelefte ac divinum eft, ob eamque rem
" aeternum fit necefle eft." And in the fame difcourfe he pro-
duces a pal'lagc from Plato's Phaedrus, which he feems highly to
approve; and which he had alfo cited in his fixth book de Re-
publica. Plato begins with obferving, that every foul is immor-
tal, 'zrxcrx 4-";:/^) cc^xi'txro;. And the argument he ufes to prove it
is elegantly tranflated by Cicero. It is to this purpofe : that
" that which always moves is eternal : that which is moved by
" anotlier muft come to an end of motion, and confequently of
" life : but that which moves itfelf will never ceafe to move, be-
" caufe it is never deferted by itfelf. Moreover it is the foun-
" tain and principle of motion to all other things which are
" moved. And that which is the principal can have no original
" or beginning : for from it all things arife, but it cannot arife
" from any other. And if it never had a beginning, it fliall never
" have an end. Since therefore it is manifeft that that is eternal
" which has the principle of motion within itfelf, who will deny
" that this nature belongs to fouls (z) t" He concludes with fay-
ing, that '* this is the proper nature and force of the foul. And
" fince it is the only thing which always moves itfelf, it never
" had a beginning, but is eternal." " Nam ha:c eft propria na-
'' tura animi atque vis: quae li eft una ex omnibus quae fe ipfa
{z) Plutarch, de Placit. Philof. lib. iv. cap. 2. fays, that Thales was the firft
who taught that the foul is in a perpetual motion, and that this motion proceeds
from Itfelf. *w.v anxiiirrcv xcu oiToxiW^v. This is an argument often maJc ufe of
by thofe of the antients who pleaded for the immortality of the foul. See Dr.
Daviss note on Tufcul. Dlfput. lib. i. cap. 2j. p. 53.
Vol II. - B b b '^ fempcr
3 yo The Philofcphers ptaced the Immortality of Part III.
" femper moveat, neque certe nata eft, et sterna eft." Plato has-
it thus, V^, a.vaV^r,i xyoiHTOv Ti x.'M aOstcarJ;' -^v^r: aV itn, of neccf-
" fity the Ibul muft bs an ungeneratcd and immortal thing {a)."
Cicero highly commends this as both elegantly and acutely
argued, and afterwards fums it up himfelf thus : " The foul per-
" ceives that it moves, and at the fame time perceives that it
" moves not by a foreign force, but by its own ; and it can ne-
" ver happen that it ftiould be deferted by itfelf : from whence it
*' follows, that it muft be eternal." " Sentit igitur animus fe
" moveri, quod cum fcntit illud una fcntit, fc vi fud non alicna
" moveri, nee accidere pofle ut ipfa unquam a fe deferatur : ex
" quo cflicitur a^ternitas {/->)." This way of arguing fo much
admired by Cicero might be made ufe of to prove the eternal
exiftence of the one fclf-exiftcnt independent Being, the firft caufe
of all things, and the principle and original of all motion. But
when applied to the human foul, if it proved any thing, would
prove that it is felf-originate, independent, and neceflarily eternal
by the force of its own nature. So that if it be not ftridly of the
fame effcnce with the fupreme God, it is of a nature perfedly
like his, underived, and which exifted of itfelf from everlafting,
and continueth always to exift by its own force, and can never
be deftroyed or ceafe to exift {c). Hence it was that fome of the
anticnt
(<j) Plato in Phxdro, Opcia, p. 344. D. E. edit. LugJ. 1590.
(l>) Cic. Tufcul. Difput. 1. i. cap. 23. p. 52. ct fcq. cJit. D.ivis.
(f) This fecms to be tlie courfe of Phto's .irgument for the immortality of the
foul as urged by Plato in his Phxdrus, and after him by Cicero. And yet the
• fame
Cliap. V. the Scid on ivrong Foundations. ^ji
antient fathers found fault with the dodrine of the natural im-
mortality of the foul as taught by the Heathen philofophers; be-
caufc they thought it tended to prove that the foul continued to
exift by a necelTity of nature, and was independent on God. Ar-
nobius particularly charges them with holding, that the foul was
equally immortal with God himfelf j which, he thought, had a
tendency to take away tlic dread of a fiipreme power, and of a
future judgment and punifhment ; and thereby to encourage men
to all manner of wickednefs, and the licentious indulgence of their
lufts and appetites. " Quid enim," f;iys he, " prohibebit quo
" minus hcecfaciat? metus fupremai poteilatis, judiciumque di-
*' vinum .'' Et qui potcrit territari formidinis alicujus horrore, cui
*' fuerat perfuafum, tarn fe effe immortalem, quam ipfum Dcum
*' primum ? nee ab eo judicari quicquam de fe polTe: cum fit
" una immortalitas in utroque, nee in alterius altera conditionis
" poffit asqualitate vexarl."
It has been fhewn that the principal arguments made ufe of
by the antient Pagan philofophers to prove the immortality of
the foul placed it on wrong foundations. I fliall not enter on a
particular confideration of the other arguments offered by them
in proof of that important article. One would have expedled
to have met with fome folid and fatisfadtory reafonings on this
fubjedl in Plato's Phasdo, a treatife highly celebrated by antiquity,
fame Plato in his Timjsus makes the immortality of the feconJaiy goils to depend
not merely upon their own nature, but upon the will of the feipremt God, And
furely this Ci^tially holds conceraing human fouls.
B b b 2 and
372 "^^ Phikfophers corrupted the Doclrhie of a future Part III.
and the profeffed defign of which is to prove the immortaHty.
And it may reafonably be fuppofcd, that Plato has there laid to-
gether, and put into the mouth of Socrates, whatever he judged
to be of the greatcft force, whether it had been advanced by So-
crates, or was of his own invention. But I am forry to obferve,
that, abftradling from the fine manner of carrying on that dia-
logue, there is not much ftrength of argument even in thofc
things on which he feems to lay the greateft flrefs : and that fome
of them are obfcure and trifling, and what one would not have
expedled from fo great a man {d). Socrates and Plato fcem to
be among the firft that undertook to prove this point in a way of
reafon and argument. But, as was before obferved, they both
reprefent it as having been tranfmitted by antient traditions, ih
which it was jufl to give credit as being of a divine original.
((/) The reader that would fee a fummary of Socrates's arguments for the im-
mortality of the foul, as reprefented in Plato's Pha;do, may confiik the account
given of them by Dr. Cdn:ipbell in his Nccellity of Revelation, fi:€t. 3. p. 100. et
feq. upon all which that' learned writer obferves, that " Socrates by no means
" arrived at this truth, in purfuing any ferics of ideas or notions that could arifc
*' in one's mind from the nature and relations of things. He is much like a man
" who has fome way or other picked up a truth, but can give no account of it,
" but carts abroad to find out fomething to jurtify his opinion in the beft man-
" ner he can, without advancing any thing to the purpofe." Ibid. p. 107. Indeed
fome of the latter Platonirts and Pythagoreans who lived after life and immortality
was brought into the mort clear and open light by the Gofpel, f>rem to have ma-
naged the argument with much greater advantage than Plato himlclf. This may
be particularly obferved concerning Plotinus ; and indeed this great article feems
then to have been more generally acknowledged among the philofophcrs, than it
•wis before. And yet Porphyry, one of the mort learned of them, and a great ad-
mirer of Plotinus obferves, that the reafons whereby the philofophcrs endeavoured
to demonftrate the immortality of the foul were cafy to be overthrown. Ap. Eufeb.
Prcrpar. Evangel, lib. xiv. cap. 10. p. 74 i. C.
Another
Chap. V. State by mixing it with the Tranfmigration ofSouJs. 373
Another remarkable inftance, in which thofe of the ancients
who profeffcd to believe the immortality of the foul, and a ftate
of future rewards and punifhments, greatly weakened and cor-
rupted that dodlrine, relates to the notion they unlverfally held of
the tranfmigration of fouls. This has been already mentioned ;
but it is proper to take fome further notice of it in this place.
As they maintained the pras-exiflence of human fouls before
their entrance into their prefent bodies, fo alfo that they tranfmi-
grated after their departure out of thefe bodies, from one body to
another. Thefe notions were looked upon as having a near con-
nexion } and thofe that held the former maintained the latter too.
And indeed they who believed that their fouls had exiftcd long
before they animated their prefent bodies, would find no diffi-
culty in conceiving that after quitting thefe bodies they pafled
into others. And what might contribute to the general reception
and propagation of this notion, both among the more learned and
the vulgar, was, that they believed, upon the credit of a very an-
tient tradition, that the foul did not die with the body, and that
it furvived in a future ftate, and yet could not well conceive how
it could live and fubfift without animating fome body : this led
them to fuppofe that, when it was diflodged from one body, it
animated another. And as they believed that the inferior animals
had fouls as well as men, they might fuppofe that human fouls
might tranfmigrate into the bodies of thofe animals (e).
(<r) Some fuppofe that the do(ftrineof tr.infmigiatlon might have been owing to
an abufc or perverfion of an antient tradition concerDing the refurre<flion of the
body : concerning which fee below, chap, viii.
But
374 ^^■'^ Philofophers corrupted the DoBrine of a future Part III.
But whencefoever this notion of the tranfmigration of fouls had
its life, it fpi-ead very generally among the nations, and was em-
braced not only by the vulgar, but by the moft wife and learned.
And it proved to be a great corruption and depravation of the true
original doftrine of the immortality of the foul, and a future flate.
They endeavoured indeed to explain it fo as to accommodate it to
moral purpofes, by fuppofing different kinds of bodies which they
were appointed to animate, in order to preferve fome appearance
of future rewards and punifliments. But in reality upon this
fcheme there could be no proper retributions iu another life for
what was done in the prefent. For in the feveral tranfmigrations
from one body to another, the foul was generally fuppofed to have
no remembrance in a fucceeding body of the adtions it had done,
and the events which had happened to it In a former. Pytha-
goras indeed pretended to remember the feveral tranfmigrations he
had paffed through, and what he had done, and what had be-
fallen him in the feveral bodies he had animated : but this was
reprefented as a peculiar and extraordinary privilege, granted to
him by Mercury, and which was not fuppofed to be the common
cafe of tranfmigrated fouls. And if the foul in its feveral removes
forgets what was done in the former body, it cannot, when en-
tered into another body, be properly faid to be rewarded or pu-
nifhed for what it had done before, and of which it had no
confcioufnefs.
It is plain therefore that the dodtrine of the tranfmigration of
fouls, on fuppofitlon that this tranfmigration was to begin imme-
diately upon the foul's departure from the prefent body, which
J feems
Chap. V. State by mixing it with the Tranfmigration of Souls, ^y^
feems to be the notion that many, entertained of it, and pro-
bably Pythagoras himfelf, left no proper place for a ftate of fu-
ture retributions.
Others therefore fuppofed that fouls were firft to go to Hades
or the Inferi, where they were fuppofed to have a remembrance
of their part a<flions, and to be rewarded or punilhed accordingly.
And when they had abode there for fome time they were to enter
into bodies of various kinds, and after a fucccflion of tranfmigra-
tions were to be refunded into the univerfal foul, and to lofe their
individual fubfiflence.
The tranfmigrations which have been mentioned were fuppofed
to belong to all human fouls in general. But there were excep-
tions made in favour of fome privileged perfons.
This leads me to another obfervation upon the dodlrine of thofe
philofophers who profefTed to believe a future ftate j and that is,
that when they fpeak in the highefl flrains of future happinefs, it
relates chiefly to fome privileged fouls of diflinguifhcd eminence,
but affords no great comfort or encouragement to the common
fort of pious and virtuous perfons. With regard to thefe laft, So-
crates and Plato fuppofe them to go to Elyfium and the Iflands
of the bleffed, but after a temporary abode there (/), they were
to
(/) The learned Biniop of Gloucefter has obferved, thai " the anticnts diAin-
" guifhcd the fouls of men into three fpecies, the human, the heroic, and the
" daemonic. The two lali; were indeed believed to enjoy eternal hapintfs for their
" public
37<5 Their DoSirine of future Rewards not favBurabk Part III.
to pafs through feveral tranfmigrations, and were at length to
.ceturn to life again in fuch bodies of men or hearts as were beft
fuited to them, or as they themfelves (hould chufe [g). But both
thefe philofophers give a high idea of the happinefs which fome
perfons ftiall be raifed to after their departure hence, that they
fliall be admitted to the fellow Hiip of the gods in celcflial abodes ;
but thefe were only fuch as having applied themfelves to the ftudy
of philofophy, had lived abftradted from the body and all corporeal
things, and had arrived to an eminent degree of wifdom and pu-
rity : or fuch great and heroic fouls as had been eminently ufeful
to the public. Plato in his fifth Republic fays, that they who
died in war, after having behaved with courage and bravery, be-
come holy and terreflrial daemons, avertcrs of evils, and guardians
of mankind, and that their fepulchres fliould be honoured, and
they themfelves fhould be worshipped as daemons (/'). But it
cannot be denied, that a perfon might behave with great courage
and bravervi and die in the war in the caufe of his country, and
yet in other refpefts be far from dcferving the charadler of a good
and virtuous man. And in that very book he allows fuch a man,
as a reward of his bravery, liberties in indulging his amorous in-
" public ftrvkes on earth, not indeed iii Elyfium, but in heaven: %vhere they
" became a kind of demigods. But all of the Hrll which included the great body
" of mankind, were nnda'ftood to have their dcfignation in purgatory, Tartarus,
" or Elyfium. The firlt and iaftof which abodes were temporary, and the fecond
" only eternal." Div. Leg. vol. I. p. 396. 2d. edit.
(a) See here above, p. 346, 347. and compare what Plato fays in his Gorgias,
Oper. p. 312. F. with what is faid in the PhJcdo, ibid. p. 386. E, F. and in his
tenth Republic, ibid. p. 521. edit. Lugd.
('•^ Plato Opcr. p. 464, 465. edit. Lugd.
clinations,
Cliap. V. to the common Sort of good and virtuciis Perfons. ^yy
clinations, in no wife confident with the rules of purity and vir-
tue. But in this, as well as other inftances, Plato and the other
philofophers took care to adapt their notions of a future (late and
its rewards to political ends and views, and had not fo much a
regard to what they themfelves thought to be the truth, as to
what they judged to be for the public utility, and the intereft of
the flate. Cicero places thofc who had been ferviceable to their
country, in preferving and affifting it, and enlarging its dominion,
not merely in Elyfium, which was only a temporal felicity, but
in heaven, where they were to be happy for ever. " Omnibus
*' qui patriam confcrvarint, juverint, auxerint, certum' efTe in coelo
" ac definitum locum, ubi beati a;vo fempiterno fruentur (/).
The Stoics held that common fouls at death, or foon after it,
were to be refolvcd into the univerfal nature, but that great and
eminent ones were to continue to the conflagration, and that fome
of them fliould be advanced to the dignity of gods. The Egyp-
tians, notwithftanding their notions of the tranfmigratlon of fouls,
fuppofcd that fome fouls might be taken immediately into the fel-
lowfhip of the gods ; as appears from the remarkable prayer ad-
drefled to the fun, and all the gods the givers of life, on the behalf
of the perfon deceafed ; of which fome notice was taken above {k).
But this feems to have been confined to nobles and perfons of
eminence, and was not fuppofcd to extend to the vulgar. In like
manner the Indian Gymnofophifts, who were zealous abettors of
the dodlrine of tranfmigratlon, feem to have made exceptions to
(j) CIc. in Somnio Sciplonis, cap. 3.
(/>•) Page 43. of this volume.
Vol. II. Ccc the
378 iTie Gofpel Do^rim of eternal Life to all Part III.
the general law in their own favour, as having attained to an ex-
alted degree of fanftity, and that by burning thcmfelves in the
fire they fliould go out of the body perfeftly pure, and have an
immediate accefs to the gods. It is alfo fuppofcd in the Golden
Verfes of Pythagoras, that they who came up to the height of the
Pythagorean precepts, and lived an abftradled and philofophical
life, fhould at their death be made heroes or dcrnions, and taken
into the fellowfhip of the gods (/). To this notion of many of
the philofophers concerning the happinefs referved in a future ftate
for fome great and eminent fouls, Tacitus feems to refer in his Life
of Agricola, when he faith, " Si, ut fapientibus placet, non cum
" corpore extinguuntur animaj magna;, 6cc." where he feems to
make it the fpecial privilege of great fouls, not to be extinguiflied
with the body : and even of this he fpeaks doubtfully.
It appears then that the Gofpel dodlrine of eternal life and hap-
pinefs, promifed and prepared for all good men without excep-
tion, whether in a high or low condition, learned or unlearned,
who live foberly, righteoufly, and godly in this prcfent world,
and go on in a patient continuance in well-doing, was not taught
by the mofl: eminent of thofe philofophers, who profefled to be-
lieve the immortality of the foul and a future flate. The happi-
nefs propofed to be enjoyed even in their Elyfium was to be
comparatively but of a fhort duration : Virgil fixes it to a thoufand
years. And though they talked of fome emirtent and privileged
fouls of great men and philofophers, who were fuppofed to be
(/) Page 340. of this volume.
ralftd
Chap. V. the Righteous not taught by the antient Phikfophen. ^y^
raifcd to heaven, and there to enjoy eternal happinefs, or even to
become demi-gods or daemons, yet they could not, in confiftency
with their fchemes, underftand this of a happinefs which was
in the ftricft and proper fenfe eternal, and never to have an end.
For, as hath been already flicwn, it was a notion which generally
obtained among them, that at certain periods whjch the Stoics
termed conflagrations, and which were to happen at the end of
what they, as well as the Pythagoreans and Platonifts, called the
great year, there fhould be an utter end put to the prefent flate of
things; and the fouls of all men, and even thofe of them which
had become gods, demons, or heroes, were to be refumed into the
univerfal foul, and thereby lofe their individual exiftence : after
which there was to be an univerfal renovation or reproduftion of
all things ; and a new courfe was to begin in every refpedl like the
old; and that fuch periodical deftrudlions and renovations fhould
fucceed one another in infinitum.
The obfervations which have been made are fufEcient to fliew
that thofe antient philofophers, who are generally looked upon as
the ableft afferters of the immortality of the foul and a future flate,
had wrong and confufed notions concerning it ; and that thofe
Chriftian writers are much miftaken who reprelcnt the antient
Pagan philofophers as having taught the fame doctrine concerning
a future flate, which, to our unfpeakable comfort and advantage,
is brought into a clear and open light by the Gofpcl.
C c c 2 CHAP.
380 The beft of the Philofophers did not pretend to Part III.
CHAP. VI.
Thofe that feemed to be the mojl Jirenuous advocates for the immor-
tality of the foul and a future fate among the ant lent s, did not
pretend to any certainty concerning it. The uncertainty they
were under appears from their way of managing their confolatory
difcoutfes on the death of their friends. To this alfo it was
owing, that in their exhortations to virtue they Liid little frefs
on the rewards of a future fate. Their mA having a certainty
concenwig a future fate, put them upon fchemes to fupply the
want of it. Hence they infijlcd upon the felf-ftfficiency cf virtue
J or complete happinefs without a future recompcnce : and aj/erted,
that ajhort happinefs is as good as an eternal one.
ANOTHER important obfervation with regard to thofe
antient philofophers, who were efteemed the ablcft advo-
cates for the immortality of the foul and a future ftate, is, that
after all the pains they took to prove it, they did not pretend to
an abfolutc certainty, nor indeed do they feem to liave fully fatit-
fied themfelves about it. The paflages to this purpofe are well
known, and have been often quoted, but cannot be entirely omitted
here.
Socrates himfelf, when he was near death, in difcourfing
with his friends concerning the immortality of the foul, cxprcfles
his hope th:\t he Hiould go to good men after death, " but this
(fays
Chap. VI. a full Certainty concerning a future State. 381
(fays he) " I would not abfolutely affirm." He indeed is more
pofitive as to what relates to his going to the gods after death,
though this he alfo qualihesj by faying, that " if he could affirm
" any thing concerning matters of fuch a nature, he would affirm
" this.— 'EiTTfo Ti aAAo TMV TOiiTCOv S'r)^v^ia-xl\jS^} ocv ^ tSto (*')•"
And he concludes that long difcourfe concerning the ft:ate of fouls
after death with faying, " That thefe things are fo as I have re-
" prefented them it does not become any man of underflanding to
" affirm :" though he adds, " that if it appears that the foul is
" immortal, it feems reafonable to think, that either fuch things
" or fomething like them are true, with regard to our fouls and
" their habitations after death : and that it is worth making a trial,
" for the trial is noble («)."
And in his apology to his judges, he comforts himfelf with this
confideration, that " there is much ground to hope that death is
" good : for it muft neceffarily be one of thefe two; either the
" dead man is nothing, and hath not a fenfc of any thing ; or it
" is only a change or migration of the foul hence to another
" place, according to what we arc told, y^ t« >.iyQfjt.svoi.- If
" there is no fenfe lefr, and death is hke a profound fleep, and
" quiet reft without dreams, it is wonderful to think what gain
" it is to die; but if the things which are told us are true, that
" death is a migration to another place, this is ftill a much greater
" good." And foon after, having faid, that " thofe who live
{m) See Plato's PhKdo, Opera, p. 377. H. edit. Liigd.
(«) IbiU. p. 401. A.
"■ there
382 The beft of the Philofophers did 7iot prctaid to Part III.
" there arc both in other refpeds happier than we, and alfo in
<' this, that for the reft of their time they are immortal," he
again repeats what he had faid before ; " If the things which are
" told us are true," ''Eizc^ ra ?^.iyo|JLirx a/./?:^)! W"' • where he
feems to refer to fome antient traditions, which were looked upon
as divine, and which he hoped were true, but which he was not
abfolutely fure of.
And he concludes his apology with thefe remarkable words ;
" It is now time to depart hence : I am going to die ; you fliall
" continue in life ; but which of us ftiall be in a better ftate, is
" unknown to all but God (0)."
What has been obferved concerning Socrates, holds equally
concerning Plato, who generally fpeakshis own fentiments, efpe-
cially in what relates to the immortality of the foul and a future
ftate, by the mouth of Socrates.
None of the antient philofophers has argued better for the im-
mortality of the foul than Cicero -, but at the fame time he takes
care to let us know, that he followed only that which appeared
to him the moft probable coniedurc, and which was the utmoft
he could attain to, but did not take upon him to affirm it as
certain. This is what he declares in the beginning of his difcourfe
upon that fubje<5l : " Ut homunculus unus a multis probabilia
" conjedlur;! fcquens, ultra cnim quo progredior, quam ut vcri-
('/) See Plato's PhacJo, Opera, p. 368. H. 369. A. C, D. edit. Luj^iK
J " fimilia
Chap. VI. a full Certainty co?icerning a future State. 383
" fimilia videam, non habeo (/>)." And after having menrioned
a great variety of opinions about the human foul, and particularly
whether it dies with the body, or furvives it; and if the latter,
whether it is to have a perpetual exiftencc, or is only to continue
for a time after its departure from the body j he concludes with
faying, " Which of thefe opinions is true, fonie god muft de-
" termine. Which is moft probable, is a great queftion." — " Ha-
" rum fententiarum qua; vera fit deus aliquis viderit : quse veri-
" limillima magna quceftio eft {q)."
The uncertainty the moft excellent Pagan philofophers were
under with regard to a future ftate farther appears, in that in their
difputations and difcourfes, which were defigned to fortify them-
fclves or others againft the fear of death, as alfo in their confola-
tory difcourfes on the death of deceafed friends, they ftill pro-
ceeded upon alternatives ; that death is either a tranflation to a
better ftate, or is an utter extindion of being, or at leaft a ftate
of infenfibility. It was with this confideration that Socrates com-
forted himklf under the near profped; of death, as appears from
the paffages already produced. In like manner Cicero's whole dif-
putation in his celebrated book above-mentioned, the profefled
defign of which is to fortify men againft the fear of death, turns
upon this alternative, with which he concludes his difconrfe : That'
" if the day of our death brings with it not an extindion of our
(/) Tuftiil. Difput. lib. i. cap. 9.
{q) Ibid. cap. 1 1 .
*' being.
3 84 '^h^ b^ft oft^^^ Philofopbers did not pretend to Part III.
" being, but only a change of our abode, nothing can be more
" defirable ; but if it abfolutely deftroys and puts an end to our
" exiftence, what can be better than, amidfi: the labours and
" troubles of this life, to reft in a profound and eternal deep ?" —
" Si fupremus illc dies non extinftionem, fed commutationem
" adfer tloci, quid optabilius ? Sin autem perimit ac delct omnino,
" quid melius quam in mediis vitce laboribus obdormilccie, et
" ita conniventem fomno confopiri fempiterno (r) r" And this is
the confideration that he feems to me to rely principally upon.
There are feveral paflages of Seneca to the fame purpofc, fome
of which are cited above, p. 324.. To which I Ihall add one
more from his Confolation to Polybius, who was grieved for tlie
death of his brother. He directs him to argue with himfelf thus :
" If the dead have no fenfe, my brother has efcapcd from all the
" incommodities of life, and is reftored to that (late he was in before
" he was born ; and being free from all evil, fears nothing, defires
" nothing, fuffers nothing. If the dead have any fenfe, the foul of
" my brother, being let loofe as it were from a long confinement,
" and entirely his own mafter, exults, and enjoys a clear fight of
*' the nature of things, and looks down as from a higher fituation
'' upon all things human with contempt ; and he has a nearer
" view of divine things, the reafons of which he has long fought
" for in vain. Why therefore do I languifh for the want of
" him, who is cither happy, or not at all ? To lament one
(;-) Tufcul. Difput. lib. i. cap. 49.
" that
Chap. VI, a full Certainty concerning c future State. 3S)
*' that is happy is envVj and one that has no exigence is mad-
" nefs (5)."
Plutarch, as was before obfervcd, has feveral paflliges, from
which it may be concluded that he looked upon the immortality
of the foul as a probable opinion, yet he fometimes exprcfTes
himfelf in a manner which fccms to fliew that he either did not
believe it, or was not certain of it. In his confolation to x^pollo-
nius he obferves, that Socrates faid that death is either like to a
deep fleep, or to a journey afar off and of a long continuance, or
to the entire extindtion of foul and body. This he quotes with
approbation, and fets himfelf diflindtly to fhew, that in none of
thefe views can death be confidered as an evil (/). And in the
treatife which is deligned to prove that no man can live plcafantly,
according to the tenets of Epicurus, fpeaking of the hope of im-
mortality, he calls it i) i^'i tc fjiv^wih r diSioTm®-- eA-Tn, " the
{s) Sencc. Confol. ad Polyb. cap. 27. " Si nullus dcfuncftis fenfus fit, evafit
*' omnia frater meus vit?e incommoda; et in eum reftitutus eft locum, in quo fu-
" erat antcquam nafccretur, et cxpers omnis mali nihil timet, nihil ciipit, nihil
" patitur. Si eft aliquis defunftis fenfus, nunc animus fratris mei, velut ex diu-
" tino carcere miflus, tandem fui juris ct aibitrii, gcftit, et renim naturoe fpeda-
" culo fruitur, ct humana omnia ex fuperiore loco defpicit, divina vero, quorum
" rationem tamdiu fruftra quafierat, propius intnetur. Quid itaque ejus defidc-
" rio maccror, qui aut beaius aut nullus eft ? Beatum deflere, invidia eft, nullum
*' dementia."
(/) Plutarch. Opera, torn. II. p. 107. D. Here one part of the alternative is
the utter extiniflion of being ; and he endeavours to ftiew, that on that fuppofition
death is not an evil ; and yet, ibid. p. 1 105. A. in his treatife Non pofTe fuavitcr
viv. he very juftly argues, that the notion of utter difFolution and extin(flion ;it
death does not take away the fear of death, but rather confirms it ; fmcc this very
thing is what nature has a ftrong averfion to.
Vol. 11. Ddd « fabulous
385 The Uncertainty of the bejl Philofophers Part III.
" fabulous hope of immortality." Or, as the learned Mr. Baxter
renders it in his Englifh tranflation of that tradl, " The hope
" conceived of eternity from the tales and fables of the anti-
" ents [u)." And in his trcatife of fuperftition, he fuppofes death
to be the final period of our exiftence, and that the fear of any
thing after it is the effedl of fuperftition : " Death (fays he) is to
" all men the end of life, but to fuperftition it is not fo. She
" ftreiches out her bounds beyond thofe of life, and makes her
" fears of a longer duration than our exiftence." Yleoai t? /2/a
"Tzcccnv dv^pcuTTOii 0 ^ayccT^f irs ^i SeicriS'a.ty.ovta.s ui- bt@-, aAA*
So great is the inconfiftency which frequently appears in the
writings of the antient philofophers on this and other articles of
importance. They are fo often varying in their docftrine, feeming
to afBrm in one place what they treat as fabulous and uncertain
in another, that feme very learned perfons have thought it could
not be otherwife accounted for, than by fuppofing a great difference
betv^'een what is called the exoteric and efoteric dodlrine j i. e.
the dodlrine they taught openly to the people, and that which they
taught privately to their difciples, whom they let into the fecrets
of their fcheme. I fliall not enter into the controverfy about the
meaning of the diftindtion between the exoteric and efoteric doc-
trine of the antients. I am apt to think that it relates fometimcs
(«) Plutarch. Opera, torn. II. p. 1104. C.
(at) Plutr.rch. tic Superflit. Opera, torn. II. p. 166. F. edit. X}!.
Chap. VI. concerning a future State. 387
to their treating on different fubjeds, and fometimes to their dif-
ferent manner of treating the, fame fubjeft. For the fame dodtrine
was often delivered by the philofophers both to their difciples and
to the people ; to tiie one in a grofs and popular, to the other in a
more philofophical and abftradted way. That this was one prin-
cipal thing. intended by that diftindlion, may be juftly concluded
from that noted paflage of Cicero, where, fpeaking of the doiftrine
of the Peripatetics concerning the fummum bonum or chief good,
he mentions two kinds of books publifhed by them ; fome written
in the popular way, which they called exoteric, the other more
accurately and philofophically, which they left in commentaries j
and that though they do not always feem to fay the fame things,
yet in the main there was in reality no difference or difagreement
between them. " De fummo autem bono, quia duo genera
" librorum funt, unum populariter fcriptum quod fh&jTjpiy.sr ad-
" pellarunt, alterum limatius quod in commcntariis reliquerunt,
" non femper idem dicere videntur : nee in fumma tamen ipfa
" aut varietas eft ulla apud hos quidem quos nominavi, aut inter
" ipfos diflenfio (>')•" ^^^ whatever may be fuppofcd to be the
precife meaning of exoterical and efoterical, as applied to the writ-
ings of the antient philofophers, and though it is not a proof, or
even a prefumption, of a dodrine's not being agreeable to their
real fentimcnts, becaufe it was taught in their exoterical or popular
difcourfcs, yet, on the other hand, it cannot well be denied, that
they fometimes chofe to difguife their fentimcnts, and conceal them
from the people: and that we cannot always be fure that what
, (_>') Cic. de Finib. Bon. ct Mai. lib. v. cap. 5. p. 353. cJit. Davis.
Ddd 2 they
38S The Uncertainty of the heft Phikfophers Part III.
they delivered in their popular difcourfes was what they themfLlves
believed to be true. It was a maxim among many of the an-
tients, that it was lawful to deceive the people for the public good.
They were for the rndft part not very llridl in their notions with
refped: to the obligations of truth j and thought there was no
harm in making ufe of fallhood when it was profitable. This was
what Plato himfelf made no fcruple to avowj concerning which, fee
above, p. 245). And in this he v/.is followed by other Platonifts,
of which we have a remarkable inftance in Synefius. He wa&
raifed to a bhhopric in the Chriftian church, but continued to be
a determined Platonift, and had fo far imbibed the fpirit and
doctrine of that fchool, as to declare. That " philofophy, whc-i
** it has attained to the truth, allows the ufe of lies and fictions."
He adds, " As darknefs is moft proper and commodious for
" thofe v/ho have weak eyes, fo I hold that lies and fitlions arc
" ufeful to the people, and that truth would be hurtful to thofe
** who are not able to bear its light and fplendour ; and he pro-
" mifes if the laws of the church would difpenfe with it, that he
" would philofophize at home, and talk abroad in the common
" ftrain, preaching up the general and received fables (2;)." In
this
(z) The reader may fee this, and other teftimonies to the fame purpofe, pro-
duced by the celebrated author of the Divine Legition of Mofcs, Vol. II. book iii.
kdi. 2. p. 92. et feq. edit. 4th. and alfo by the learned and judicicus author of
the Critical Enquiry into the Opinions and Pra(5liccs of the antient I'hilofopiicrs,
chap. 1 1.. To this I would add, that this method of the double doftiine, the one
fuppofed to be ftrii.T:ly and philofophically true, the other in fevcral inlbnccs t..ife».
but accommodated to the people, and dcfigned for moral and political purpofcs,.
kas long been in ufe m the call, and continues Hill to be fo. This is particularly
obfavcd'
Chap. V'l. concerning a future State, 380
this he certainly adVed not according to the ipirit of the Gofpcl,
which allows no luch methods of falihood and deceit > but it was
not unfuitable to the maxims of many of the philofophers. And
this tends not a little to 'Cveaken their credit, and often makes it
difficult to know their real fentiments, efpecially if in different
parts of their works they advance different notions o:\ the lame
fubjedl. It feems to be a reafonable rule which is laid down by
fome learned critics, that when in one place they exprels them-
felves agreeably to the popular opinions, and in another feem to
contradidt them, in the former cafe they accommodate tlicmfeives
to the notions of the people, and in the other fpeak their own
fentiments. But yet I am apt to think, that the inconfiflencics
which may be obferved in the writings of the antients, particulai !y
with regard to the immortality of the foul and a future ffate, are
not always to be charged upon this ; but are often owing to their
not having fixed notions, or a full affurance of thofe things in
their own minds. The uncertainty they were under was, I doubt
not, often the true fource of their variations, and of tlieir am-
©bferved concerning the learned fecft in China *. F. Longobardi aduies us, that
fome of their docflors made no fcruple to declare to him, that the better to "overa"
the people, they taught them feveral things which tliey themrdres did not believe
to be true. See his treatife in Navarette's Account of the Empire of China, p. 1 74,
175. and alfo p. 186, and 198. And in the Account Navarette there gives of
the tenets of the fe(5l of Foe, he tal<es notice of their exterior and interior dodlrinc :
the latter of which is contrary to the former, efpecially with regard to a future
ftate. They publicly preach it up to the people, but tlicir interior doftrine rejeifls
it. The fame is liiid concerning the Bonzes. See Navarette's Account of the Em-
pire of China, book ii. chap. 11. p. 78, 79. in the firft volume of Chuirliill's
CoUeifllon of Travels and Voyages.
*S« the form«i 7oIurac o.'thu v.5tJ»,. chap, n, h the brjinnlnj.
biguous>
500 T'he Doutrine cj a future State not applied by Part III.
biguous, and fometimes contradidlory way of talking on this
fiibje(5t.
To this uncertainty it was owing, that, in their moral fyftcms,
they did not apply the dodtrine of a future ftate to the excellent
ends and purpofes for which it feems naturally to be fitted and
defigned. There are two principal ufes to be made of it, where
it is heartily believed. The one is, to fupport men againft the
troubles and forrows of this prefent ftate, and the fear of death :
the other is, to animate men to the pracflice of virtue amidft the
many difficulties and difcouragements to which they are here
expofed.
As to the former of thefe, any one that is acquainted with the
writings of thofe philofophers who lived before the coming of our
Saviour, will find that there is little ftrefs laid on the dodtrine of
a future flate, for fupporting or comforting men under the various
troubles and forrows of this prefent life, or for raifing them above
the fear of death.
Cicero indeed, in his firfl book of tlie Tufculan Difputations,
the title of which is De morte contemnenda, has brought many
arguments, which he manages with great eloquence, to prove the
immortality of the foul : but, as has been already obfcrved, the
confideration he feems principally to rely upon for fupporting men
againft the fears of death, proceeds upon an alternative, which
includes a funpofition that the foul may die. For he argues, that
either the foul fliall be immortal and go to anotlier flate, or it
2 Hiall
Chap. VI. the Philofopbers to its prober Ends and Ujl-s. 3 p r
{hall be extinguiflied at death, and deprived of all fenfe : and that
on either of thefe fuppofitions, death is not an evil, nor therefore
to be feared. And in his following difputations, he makes no ufe
of the dodlrine of the immortality of the foul and a future ftate,
though the fubjecls he treats of naturally led him to take fome
notice of it, if he had thought it might be depended upon. The-
fubjeft of the fecond of thefe difputations is De tolerando dolore.
That of the third De aegritudine lenienda. The fourth treats De
reliquis animi perturbatlonibus. But though a variety of confi-
derations are offered, yet in none of thefe treatifes is there one
word of comfort or fupport drawn from the hope of immortal itv.
All terminates in a man's fupporting himfelf by the ftrength of
his own mind, and the force of his virtue ; and in endeavouring
to perfuade men that none of the things which are generally ac-
counted good or evil, are really good or evil, but are fo in opinion
only. And when he mentions the feveral methods of confolation
propofed and infifted upon by the philofopbers, not the leafl hint
is given of a happier ftate of exiflcnce after this life is at an end [a).
The fifth book of thofe difputations is defigned to fliew, that vir-
tue is of itfclf fufficient for a happy life, *' virtutem ad beate vi-
*' vendum feipdi effe contentam." And in this whole difputa-
tion he abftrads entirely from the confideration of a future happi-
nefs or reward.
The fame obfervation may be made on his five celebrated books
Ds Finibus Bonorum et Malorum. The defign of them is tO'
[a) Sec particuLirly Tiifcul. Difput. lib. lii. cap. 31 ct 32.
enquire:
392 The Philojbphers extolled the Self- fufficiency Part III.
enquire into the fummum bonum, or chief happlneHj of man.
But in this whole enquiry no notice is taken of a future flate. It
is ail along fuppofed that a man is capable of attaining to a perfedl
happinefs in this prefent life, and he is never diredled to look be-
yond it to any future recompence, or to exped a complete happi-
nefs in the world to come.
As to the other main ufc to be made of the do<flrine of a future
flate, for animating men to the pradice of virtue, this alfo had little
or no place in their moral fyftems. They feem to have looked
upon this as too uncertain a thing to be relied upon, and therefore
endeavoured to find out motives to virtue, independent on the belief
of the rewards prepared for good men after this life is at an end.
They reprefented in an elegant and beautiful manner the prefent
conveniencies and advantages of virtue, and the fatisfaftion which
attends it : but efpccially they infifted upon its intrinfic excellency,
its dignity and beauty, and agreeablenefs to reafon and nature,
and its felf-fufficiency to happinefs, which many of them, efpc-
cially the Stoics, the moft rigid moralifts among them, carried to
a very high degree. Cicero in his Oriices, and thofe excellent
philofophers Epidletus and Marcus Antoninus in their works,
which fcem to be the beft moral treatifes which Pagan antiquity
has left us, go upon this fcheme. They were fcnfible indeed,
that in order to recommend virtue to the efteem of mankind, and
engage them to purfue it, it was neceffary to (hew that it would
be for their own highell advantage. Cicero obferves, that all men
naturally defire profit, and cannot do otherwife (.^) : and that if
(i) Dc Offic. lib. lli. cap. 28.
\'irtue
Chap. VI. cf Virtue, ahJiraBing frcm all future Reiiwuls. ^p^
virtue be not profitable, men will not purfue it: and therefore
he, as Socrates had done before, finds great fault with thofe wiio
were for feparating profit from honefty. He treats that maxim,
which he fays is a common one, that a thing may be honefl: with-
out being profitable, and profitable without being honeft, as tiie
moft pernicious notion, and the moft deflruiflive of all goodnefs,
that ever entered into the minds of men (c) : and that to feparate
profit from honefiy is to pervert the firft principles of nature (^).
He therefore prefers the dodlrine of the Stoics, who affirm, that
whatfoever is honefl muft be alfo profitable, and that nothing is
profitable but what is alfo honefl, to that of the Peripatetics,
who fay, there are fome things honefl which are not profitable,
and fome things profitable which are not honefl (e). This maxim
of the Stoics, that virtue is always mofl profitable, would certainly
have been very jufl, if they had taken in the confideration of a
future flate, and argued, that befides the confideration of its na-
tural excellency and good tendency, the all-wife and good Gover-
nor of the world will take care, that if good men be expofed to
grievous temporal evils and futferings, which he may permit for
the trial and exercifeof their virtue in this prefent (late, they fliall
be compenfated with glorious rewards in the world to come ; fo
that in the final ifTue of things the greatefl profit and happincfs
will upon the whole attend the pradlice and purfuit of real virtue
(f) Dc Offic. lib. ii. cap. 3. et lib. iii. c.ip. 12.
(d) Ibid. lib. iii. cap. 28.
{e) Ibid. lib. iii. c.ip. i].
Vol II. Eee and
394- Their Pretence that aJJjort temporary Happinefs Part III.
and righteoufnefs. But this was not the way the Stoics and the
moft eminent philofophers took. They affirmed that honcft and
profitable were exadly the fame thing, and diftinguiHiable only by
an adl of the mind (/ ). That virtue is the moft profitable thing in
the world, as being its own reward, and carrying a complete hap-
pinefs in its own nature infcparable from it, abftradling from all
confideration of a future recompence, or of any reward con-
ferred upon thofe that pradlife it by the holy and beneficent Go-
vernor of the world. They had nothing therefore left but to pcr-
fuade men, as well as they could, that fuppofing a good and vir-
tuous man to be under the greateft outward torments which can
be fuppofed, ftill he was at that very inftant happy, uninter-
ruptedly happy in the higheft degree, merely by the independent
force of his own virtue, abftracfting from all other confiderations
whatfoever. But though this was a very magnificent way of talk-
ing, and fcemed to fliew a high (cv\(e of the dignity and excellency
of virtue, it was too extravagant to have any great eflfe(fl on the
minds of men, or to fupport them in the pradice of virtue under
ftrong temptations, and fcvere difficulties and trials. The Peri-
patetic maxim, which Cicero finds fo much fault with, that there
are fome things honeft which are not profitable, and fome things
profitable which are not honeft, is agreeable to obfervation and
experience, if we confine our views to this prefent life and ftate of
things. Many inftanccs may be fuppofed, and have actually hap-
pened, in which a man may be a lofer in this prefent ftate by his
fteady adherence to the caufe of truth and righteoufnefs, and his
(/) DcOrtic. lib. ii. cap. 3.
virtue,
Chap. VI. is as good as a?i denial one confiJereJ, ^c)^
virtue, inftead of turning to his advantage, may bring upon hini
great calamities and fufferings of various kinds. The obfcrvation
of tliat excellent critic and hiftorian Dionyfms Hallcarnaffvus is
founded in common fenfe, and was no doubt the fentiment of
many perfons of learning and judgment in the Heathen world.
" li^ faith he, along with the diflblution of the body, the foul
" alfo, whatfoever it is, be dilTolved, I know not how thofe can
*' be fuppofed to be happy, who have enjoyed no advantage by
" virtue, but have peiiflaed on the account of it," E/ /Lt?r vv x/ulx
TQii aWfJ.Oi'jl TOli ila.?.i?^UjJI.ZVOi, KCCl T5 T^i 'T^/t''* QTOLV /»! -ZroTK i<^lV
(Kii-voy cuySixXvSTaij «x. oiSx oTTooi /JLccxctoiUs viroXaQu Ty> f/.ijSh «7ro-
As the uncertainty the philofophers were under with regard to
•a future Hate feems to have been one principal reafon of their
crying up the abfolute fufficiency of virtue to happinefs, abllradt-
ing from all confideration of a future reward, fo it was probably
from the fame views that feveral of them, efpccially the Stoics,
advanced that ftrange maxim, that the duration of happinefs con-
tributes nothing to the rendering it more compleat and defir-
able. It was a principle with Chryfippus, and which, as Plutarch
informs us, he frequently repeated, that " the length of time
*' does not increafe any good." 'Or* dyx^ov XS°''°^ ^^ aii^ei irpoa-
yivoft.ivoi. And in a paflage quoted by Plutarch from his fixth
book of Moral Queftions, he diredtly aflerts, that " men are nei-
" ther more happy for being longer fo, nor is eternal felicity more
ig) Dionyf. Halicar. Antiq. lib. viii. p. 529.
E e e 2 " eligible
39^ 'S'iWi' of the Philofophers ackmiDledged the Importance Part III.
" eligible than that which is but for a moment." Plutarch juftly
expofes this way of talking as contrary to common fenfe, and
flievvs that in this as well as feveral other inftances Chryfippus
contradidled himfelf (Z)). Nor was this merely an extraordinary
fli'jht of Chryfippus, but was the common dodlrine of the Stoics.
Cato lays, " Stoicis non vidctur optabilior, nee magis expetenda
" beata vita, fi fit longa, quam fi brevis (/)." Marcus Antoninus
himfelf frequently intimate.-, that length of time makes no dif-
ference as to the perfedion of virtue and happinefs, that " three
*' hours of fuch a life are fufficient {k)." And he fuppofes, that
though a man has lived but a fhort time, the adlion of life may
be a complete whole without any defedl ; irX-^^a xal oltooc-
cTgfs (/). So that he may attain in this fliort life to the complete
happinefs and perfedion of his nature. Thefe maxims, underftood
as they were by the Stoics, proceeded upon a wrong fuppofition.
It is true, that a good man may in a fhort time fo far fulfil the
work which is given him to do, and fo well adt the part ap-
pointed him here on earth, as to be gracioufly accepted of God,
though not abfolutely without defedl, and to be rendered meet
for that future ftate, where he fliall attain to the true perfeftion
and felicity of his nature ; but to fuppofe that in the prefent ftate
of the human nature, he can in the fhort compafs of this mortal
{h) Plutarch de Stoic. Repugn. Oper. torn. IT. p. 1046. et de Commun. Notir.
ibid. p. 1060, 1061.
(/) Apud Cic. de Finib. lib. iii. cap. 14.
{h) Anton, lib. vi. feft. 23.
(/) Ibid. lib. xi. feft. I.
Chap. ^'I. of a future State to the Caufe of Virtue. ^py
life arrive to the utmoft perfedtion of virtue and happinefs " with-
" out any defed," and that the narrovv term of this prefent life is
as fufficient for this purpofe, as if he were to live for ever in a future
happy flate of exiftence, is an extravagant way of talking, and of
pernicious confequence, as it tends to quench the generous afpi-
rations after immortality, which, as Cicero obferves, are the ftrongcfl;
in the noblell minds. For why Ihould they afpire after it, if, as
Balbus the Stoic affirms, " immortality conduces nothing to an
" happy life ?" " Nihil ad beate. vivendum pertinet." But how
much jufter is the obfervation of Plato ; " what can be truly great
" in fo fmall a proportion of time ? The whole age of man from
" his earlieft childhood to extreme old age, being very fmall and
*' inconiiderable (w)»"
And indeed notwithftanding the expedients contrived by the
philofophers for making the perfedlion of virtue and happinefs
compleat, abftrafting from all confideration of a future fl;ate, yet
fome of them could not help acknowledging, that the belief of a
future flate is of great importance to the caufe of virtue in the
world. Socrates, who, as the learned bifliop of Gloucefler al-
lows, really believed a future rtate of retributions, after havino'
mentioned the judges in Hades, and their afligning rewards to
good men and punifhments to the wicked, adds, ** by fuch fay-
** ings as thefe I am perfuaded, and make it my aim, that I may
" appear before my judges [yEacus or Minos] having a mod pure
" and found mind." And he goe^ on to declare, that thcrefore.
tm) Phto's Republ. x.
he-
•398 ^omc cfthe Philofophcrs acknowledged the Importance Part III.
he " would endeavour, to the utmoft of his power, to Hve and
" die a very good man :" and exhorts others to do fo too («)•"
And he concludes his difcourfe in the Phasdo with obfcrving, that
on the account of what he had faid concerning the rewards and
happy abodes prepared for good men in a future ftate, " it is ne-
" ceflary to do what we can to attain to williom and virtue in this
" life. For, fays he, the prize or reward of the conflift is ex-
" cellent, and the hope is great." KaAor yi^ to a^-Ao)/, x.al « eA-
TTii /Jiiyx?.}}' He adds, that it does not become any man of un-
derflanding peremptorily to affirm that thefe things are as he had
reprcfented thenij but that it is reafonable to think that thefe
things, or fomething like them, are true, and that it is worth mak-
ing a trial though with hazard, for the trial is noble (0).
Plutarch in his treatife, that no man can live happily according
to the tenets of Epicurus, reprefents thofe who have led pious and
jufi: lives as expedling glorious and divine things after death ; and
" that it is admirable to think how carefully they apply their
" minds to virtue, olov <pPovva-i rri oloista ; who believe that as the
" athleta; in the public games do not receive the crown till after
" they have gone through the contefl and proved vidorious, fo
" the reward of the vicflory atchieved by good men in this life is
" refer ved for them after this life is at an end (/>)." And he after-
wards fays, that " they who look upon death to be the beginning
(«) See at the end of Plato's Gorgias, Opera, p. 314. B. edit. Lugd.
{rj) Ibid. p. 401. A.
if) Plutarch. Opera, torn. II. p. U05. C.
" of
Chap. VI. of a future State to the Caufe cf Virtue.- 599
" of another and a better life, have both more pleafure in the good
" things they now enjoy than other men, as expecting flill greater
" hereafter j and if things do not go according to their mind they
" do not take it much aniifs; but the hopes of good things after
" death, which contain fuch ineffable plcafures and expeiflations,
" take away and obliterate every defe^fl and offence out of the
" foul ; which thereby is enabled to bear the things which befal
*' it with eafe and moderation (5-)." I cannot but remark on this
occalion, that at the time when Plutarch flourifhed, Chriftianity
had made a confiderable progrefs in the world, and with it the
knowledge and hope of life and immortality, or of eternal hap-
pinefs for the good and righteous, was far more generally dif-
fufed than before. It is true, that fome notion of the immortality
of the foul, and the rev/ards and puniiliments of a future ftate,
had obtained among the nations from the moft remote antiquity,
though mixed with much obfcurity and many fables ; but at the
time of our Saviour's coming the belief of thefe things was, as I
fliall have occafion to fliew, very much loft even among the people,
efpecially in the Roman empire, then the moft knowing and civi-
lized part of the Gentile world. But wherever the light of Chri-
ftianity Hione, the doctrine of eternal life was openly profefted by
thofe that embraced it ; and the notion of it came to fpread more
and more among the Heathens themfelves. The belief of that
future happinefs had produced wonderful effedls in the converts to
Chriftianity, both in their conftancy and even joy under the
greateft fufferings, taken notice of by tlie Pagao writers them-
(f) Plutarch. Opcr. torn, II. p. iicC ., •-.
felvesi- ,
.4CO "The Importance of a future State to the Caufe Part ITT.
felves (r), and in the purity and innocency of their lives and man-
ners. To this Pliny gives a noble teftimony in his celebrated
cpillle to Trajan, who lived about the fame time with Plutarch.
The Chriftian apologifts, in their public writings addrefTed to the
emperors, frequently mention the virtuoufnefs and regularity of
their lives, as a thing that could not be denied even by their bit-
terefl: adverfaries. Celfus himfelf, notwithftanding his ftrong pre-
judices againfl: Chriftianity, yet owns that there were among Chri-
Itians temperate, modeil, and underflanding perfons, xai usTpim
•/icti emei'y.eiit kx'i avrerdi {s). I do not therefore fee any abfurdity
in fuppofing, that when Plutarch fpeaks of pious and juft perfons
thatexpedted fuch glorious and divine things after death, he might
have a fecret reference to the Chriftians, the purity of whofe lives,
and their being (Irongly animated by the hopes of a blcfled im-
mortality, was well known ; and if he thought them in an error,
he might think them " felices errore fuo," happy in their error, as
Lucan expreffcs it, and that their hope of future happinefs had a
{r) Epiftetus and Marcus Antoninus, among others, rcprefent the ChriAians as
iliewing great fortitude, and a contempt of death, but attribute it to habit and ob-
ftinacy, though it was built on a much nobler foundation than Stoicifm could
pretend to. Epi<fl. Diflert. book iv. chap. 7. fe<ft. 2. and Anton. Mcdit. book xi.
faft. 3. tn the Glafgow tranflation of Antoninus there is a note upon the palTage
nojv referred to, which deferves to be tranfcribed here. " It is well known, that
" the ardor of Chriftians for the glory of martyrdom was frequently immoderate,
" and was ccnfured by fome even of tlie primitive fathers. This is no dillionour
" to Chriftianity, that it did not quite extirpate all forts of human frailty. And
" there is fomething fo noble in the ftedfaft lively faith, and the Aable perfua/ion
" -of a future Aate, which muft have fupported that ardor, that it makes a futfi-
" cient apology for this weaknefs, and gives the ftrongeft confirmation of tiic di-
" vine power accompanying the Gofpcl."
l» Orig. cent. Cclf. lib. i. p. :2. edit. Spenfcr.
j2 good
Cliap. VI. of Virtue acknowledged by foim of the Fhilofopbers. jp.i
good efFedt upon them, which was very proper to the purpofe he
had in view in that treatifej his never exprefly mentioning the
Chriftians in all his works, though a man fo curious as he was
may well be fuppofed to have had fome knowledge of them, as
they were then very numerous both in Greece and Rome and in
feveral parts of the Lefler Afia, feems to be an affcdcd. filence :
and it may poflibly be owing to this, that as he did not think pro-
per to give a favourable account of them, io on the other hand
he had no mind to fpeak ill of them, and therefore chofe not to-
fpeak of them at all.
Vol. II. Fff CHAP,
40t I'he Notion of a future State includes Part III.
C II A P. VII.
A finite of future rewards neceffarily connotes future puniJJ:metits.
The belief of the former ivithout the latter anight be of pernicious
confquence. The ant lent phikfophers and legiflators iverefen-
fibk of the importance and necejfity of the doSirine of future pu-
nif^ments. TTet they generally rejeSfed and difcarded them as
vain and fuperflitious terrors. The maxim uni'verfally held by
the phikfophers^ that the gods are never angry, and can do no
hurt, confdered.
THE do6trine of a future ftate comprehends both the rewards
conferred upon good men, and the puniflimcnts which
fhall be inflidled upon the wicked in the world to come. The
•one of thefe cannot be rightly feparated from the other. And the
behef of the latter is at leaft as neceflary as the former -, and with-
out which the confideration and behef of a future ftate will have no
great influence on the moral ftate of mankind.
It is a good obfervation of M. de Montefquicu, that the idea of
a place of future rewards neceflarily imports that of a place or
ftate of future puniftiments : and that when the people hope for
the one without fearing the other, civil laws have no force (/).
It would probably among other ill effedts encourage felf-murdcr,
{/) L'Efprit dcs Loix, Vol. II. liv. 24, chap. 14. p. 162. edit. Edinb.
which
Chap. Vir. future Funijlments as well as Rewards. 403
which is faid to be very common among the difciplcs of Fo in
China, who hold the immortahty of the foul («). Several paf-
fages might be produced to (hew that the wifeft of the Heathens
were fenfible of the great importance and neceflity of the dodtrine
of future punishments as well as rewards, to the well-being of
fociety. Accordingly this always made a part of the reprefenta-
tions of a future ftate exhibited in the myfteries, which were un-
der the diredlion of the civil magiftrate. Zaleucus in his excel-
lent preface to his laws reprefents it as a thing which ought to be
believed, that the gods inflid; punifliments upon the wicked. And
he concludes with taking notice of the happinefs of the jufl, and
the vengeance attending the wicked (x). Future punirtiments are
here plainly implied, though not diredlly mentioned. Timasus
the Pythagorean at the latter end of his treatife of the foul of the
world, praifes the Ionian poet for recording from antient tradition
the endlefs or irremiflible torments prepared for the unhappy dead.
And he adds, that there is a neceflity of inculcating the dread of
thefe ftrange or foreign punishments. Plato in his fourth book
of Laws takes notice of an antient tradition concerning the juftice
of God as punifliing the tranfgrcflbrs of his law. " God, as an-
" tient tradition teacheth, having or holding in himfelf the be-
" ginning, the end, and middle of all things that are, purfues the
" right way, going about according to nature, and juftice always
" accompanies and follows him, which is a puniflier of thofe
{u) See a treatife of a Chinefe philofppher iij Dii HaMc"? HiAoiy of China vol.
III. p. 272. EnglKh tranflation.
(,v) Apud Stob. fcrm. 42.
F f f 2 <« that
4C4 The ivife/l Ucathcm tvere fcnfible of the Part III.
" that fall (liort of the divine law (_)')." This pafiage rcprefents
God as a juft puniflier of tranfgreflbrs, but makes no exprefs men-
tion of the punifliments of a future ftate. But in another paira2;c
in his feventh epiftle, written to Dion's friends, which I had cc-
cafion to mention before, fee above p, ^05. he fays, " we
" ought always to believe the antient and facred wofds, or tradi-
'• tlons, which fliew both that tlie foul is immortal, and that it
" hath judges, and fuifers the greatest punilhments, when it
" leaves the body (js)." And on feveral other occafions, when
fpeaking of a future (late, betakes notice of the punifliments
which fliall be inflidled upon the wicked, and defcribes them in a
popular and poetical manner. In the conclufion of his Phicdo,
he intr£)duces Socrates, in one of his moft fcrious and folemn dif-
courfes jull: before his death, talking after the manner of the poets
of the judges after death, of Tartarus, Acheron, the Acherufian
lake, Pyriphlegethon, andCocytus: that fome after having gone
through various puniHiments fliall be purged and abfolved, and
after certain periods fliall be freed from their punifliments : " L'ut
" thofe who by reafon of the greatnefs of their fins feem to be in-
" curable, who have committed many and great ficrileges, or
" unjufl: and unlawful murders, and other crimes of the like na-
" ture, fliall have a flite fuitable to them, being thrown down
" into Tartarus, from whence they never fliall efcape (<?)." The
evTcov awavTuv iyjiv, t'uiuav 'Stealvei xara (pL^iv wtf iTOf Et;;jitrvo;' rjj oe act ^uvcncrai omyi
■Tw imhuiroiMwv tS Sei'b vtiui ti/mi^o! Plat. Oper. p. 600. G. edit. Lugd,
(2) IbiJ. p. 716. A.
(iz) Ibkl. p. 4C0. F.
like
Chap. VII. I/npcrt.:iice cf the DcBrine of future PnniJJ.vnenis. .jjj
like reprefentatlon is made at the latter end of Plato's tenth 11^-
public, in the flory of Erus Armcnius. la his Gorgias aUb he
fuppofes the wicked, and thofc who were incurable, to be fcnt
to Tartarus, where they Hiall be puniilied with cndlefs torments,
as an example to others : and he approves of Homer, for reore-
fenting wicked kings who had tyrannized over mankind, among
thofe who fhould be fo puniflied {b). There is anotlier pafliige
in his Phsdo which ought not to be omitted. He fays, that " if
" death were to be the diflblution of the whole, it would be good
" news to bad men when they die, j^^aicr %v ToTi Kx-^as aVcOaricr.',
" to have an end put to their body, and to their own pravitv,
" as well as to their fouls : but that fmce the foul appears to be
" immortal, there is no other way of efcaping evil, no other fafe-
" ty, but to become as good and as wife as they can (c)." Ci-
cero in his fecond book of Laws, fliewing the ufefulnefs of reli-
gion to fociety, obferves, that many have been reclaimed from
wickednefs by the fear of divine punifliment. " Quam multos
" divini fupplicii metus a fcelere revocavit ('^)!"
Plutarch in his treatife, That it is not pofTible to live pleafurably
according to the Doftrine of Epicurus, obferves, that Epicurus
Jiimfelf fays, there is no other way of reftraining bad men from
doing evil and unjuft adions, but by fear of punifliment: and
Plutarch gives it as his own opinion, that therefore it is proper to
{b) Plato, Oper. p. 313. E, F. cJit. LugJ.
(0 IbiJ. p. 397- H- P- 398- A.
(ti) Cic.' de Leg. lib. ii. cap. 7.
propofc
^o6 The loifejl Heathens "were fenjible of the Part III.
propofe to them all kinds of terrors and punifliments, both from
heaven and earth : and that it is for their own advantage to be
deterred from perpetrating criminal adlions by the fear of thofe
things which are to follow after death [e). And in his treatife
De fera Numinis vindida, he obferves, that " if nothing remains
" to the foul after the expiration of this life, but death puts an
" end to all favour and all punifliment, one might fay that the
" Deity dealt very tenderly and remifsly with thofe bad men, who
" are puniilied quickly, and die foon (/)•"
If we proceed from the philofophers to the poets, who were the
popular divines, and generally fpoke agreeably to the common no-
tions and antient traditions, they often fpeak of future punifli-
ments. This is particularly true of Homer. Euripides reprefents
it as a certain thing, that whofoever among mortals is bad and vi-
cious is puniflied by the gods.
xai 'yap oq'ii av (iooojuv
Eurip. Ion.
There is a paffage which Juftin Martyr afcribes to Philemon,
Clemens Alexandrinus and Theodoret to Diphylus, in which,
after having faid, that there are in Hades two feveral paths, the
one of the jnfl, the other of the unjuft, he adds, " don't be de-
" ceived ; there is a judgment in Hades, which God the Lord
(<•) Plutarch. Opera, torn. II. p. 1105. edit. Xyl. Frnncof. 1620-
(/) IbiJ. p. 555- C.
■ " of
Chap. VII. Importance of the DoSlrine of future Funifments. 407
" of all, whofe dreadful name I dare not fo much as mention,
*' will certainly execute." And foon after he fays to thofe who
imagined there is no God, " there is, there is a God ; and if any
" man does evil, he will certainly at length fufFer punifliment
" for it {g)r
Virgil in his fixtli ^neid, where he probably has a particular
reference to the reprefentations made of a future ftate in the my-
fleries, as well as to thofe made by Homer, reprefents feveral forts
of perfons, who had been guilty of very heinous crimes, as ad-
judged to grievous punilliments in Tartarus. Verf. ^(ii^ et feq.
The paflages which have been produced fliew that the wifeft
among the Heathens faw the importance of the dodrine of future
punifliments; and how neceflary it was in their opinion to the
preferving good order in the world. Celfus was fo fenfible of
this, that he would not allow Chriftianity the honour of being
thought to have taught this doiftrine to mankind. He fays, that
" they [the Chriflians] rightly maintain, that thofe perfons who
*' lead good lives fliall be happy, and that the unjufl fhall be fub-
*' je6t to eternal evils," o\ St dS'ix.ol 'vrxfJi.Tra.v aiuncti KccaoTi a-iivs'^-
oi'Tcct : and he adds, that " from this dodrine neither they nor
" any one elfe fliould depart [b)." What makes this tcftimony
more remarkable is, that Celfus was an Epicurean, and therefore
{q) Sec Dr. Sykcs's Principles and Connc(fHon of Natural and Revealed Reli-
gion, cap. xiv. p. 375.
(h) Origen cent. Celf. lib. vUi. p. 409. edit. Spenfcr.
did
jLoS Future Punipments generally rejcSfed Part II!.
did not himfelf really believe this dodlrine. It muft therefore be
only owing to the convidlion he had that it was a doctrine ufefal
to fociety. And it is proper to obferve upon this occafion, that
thole among the Heathens who profefled to belitve, or would
have the people to believe future punifhments, thought it would
not be fufHcient to anfwer the end, if fome of the punidimcnts
for incorrigible finners, guilty of enormous crimes, v/cre not
eternal.
Notwithftanding what has been faid, it cannot be denied, that
many of the moft celebrated philofophers have endeavoured to
weaken and explode that doftrine of future punifliments, which
they themfelves could not but acknowledge to be ufcful and even
necefTary to fociety.
It has been already fhewn that Pythagoras, according to the ac-
count Ovid gives of his fentiments, which feems to be a juftonc,
rejedls the ftorics of future puniHiments as vain terrors. And
Timieus, a celebrated difciple of his, at the fame time that he
fays there is a nccefllty of inculcating the dodlrine of thofe foreign
torments, plainly intimates that he looks upon the accounts which
are given of them to be fabulous and falfe.
Thoi:gh Plato has many paflages concerning future punifh-
ments, and even in fome of his moft ferious difcourfes adopts the
reprefcntations made of them by the poets j yet at other times he
rejcfts them, as giving too frightful an idea of Hades, or the fa-
ture ftatc. In the beginning of liis third Republic he declares his
dilapprobation
Chap. VII. by the Philofophers. 405,
<lifapprobation of them becaule they tended to intimidate the
foldiery. After faying that no man can be brave who fears death,
he alks, " do you think that that man will face death with cou-
*' rage, and in battle prefer death to flavery, who believes that
" the things which are fald concerning the ftate of the dead are
" true, and as dreadful as they are reprefented r" He therefore
blames thofe who make fuch a difcouraging reprefentation of Ha-
des, and would have them rather commend and praife it, " other-
" wife they neither fay the things that are true, nor what is pro-
" per for military men to hear. Therefore, fays he, all thofe
" direful and terrible names are to be rejeded, Cocytus, and
" Siyx, and the Inferi, and the ghofts of the dead, and all the
*' names of that kind, which caufe all that hear them to fliudder
*' and tremble (/')." Nothing can be a more exprefs condemn-
ation of the dodtrine he himfelf introduces Socrates as delivering
in his Pha^do, the very day of his death : and the reafon he here
gives for rejedting thefe things, viz. the not rendering death fright-
ful, will hold not merely againft the poetical reprefentations, but
againft all future punifhments after death, which yet he elfewhere
reprefents as antient and facred traditions, to which an entire cre-
(i) OuKa'/tri KM Ta 'aifi tmtoi avi/Aarcc vi-.Ta JViva Tf, Ha) ^o^i^a <irrof^)^T£a, xwxiyTKj
tf KM ruyoi, KM ivtfSf, km aM^avra;, xai ixra a\Xa tkts tS ti/Vji oiOfMt^o/ava Pfi'tln-j
ii zioiuy iij o'ov T£, ■sjavTaj Ts; cocxmai. Platon. Oper. p. 432. E. It may alfo
be obfcrved, that in his Cratyius Plato introduces Socrates, as blaming thofe who
reprefent Hades as a dark and gloomy abode, and derive the word from to aeifff,
as if it were void of light; and is rather for deriving it &7rti rS 'aavra ra KaXa li-
iitM, from knowing all things good and beautiful. Here he excludes every thing
from the notion of a future ftatc that might be apt to create terror, and feems to
leave no room for future mifery.
Vol. II. Ggg dit
410 Future Pitnijhments generally rejeSled' Part IIP.
dit is to be given. We muft therefore either fay,, that Plato him-
felf did not believe future punifhments, or that from political
views he judged it not proper to teach them to the people, that
they might not have too frightful notions of death, which ht
thought would intimidate the citizens and foldiers.. I would ob-
ferve however, that he was not very conliftent in his politicks,
fince. lie fometimes declares for rejedling the future punifliments in
Hades as not fit to be laid before the people, and yet at other
times reprefents them as of great ufe for reflraining men from
vice and wickednefs ; which feems alfo to be the notion that the
managers of the myfteries, who confidered them in a political
view, entertained of them.
None of the philofophers argued better for the immortality of
the foul, and a future ftate in general, than Cicero. And yet in
that very treatife where he takes the moft pains to prove it, he
difcards the notion of future punifliments, and openly difavows-
and ridicules them. Having mentioned Cocytus, Acheron, and
the infernal judges, and the punifhments which were fuppofed to
be inflided upon bad men after death, he introduces his auditor
as faying, " adeone me delirare cenfes, ut ifla credam?" " do you
" think me fo mad as to believe thefe things ?" And again, " quis
" eft tam vecors quem ifta moveant?" " who is fo fenfelefs as
" to be moved by them ?" Nor can it be pretended, tiiat he only
rejeds the fabulous reprefen tat ions made of thefe things by the
poets, but admits the moral of thofe fables, or what tliey were
defigned to /ignify, viz. that there ftiall be punilhmcnts inflided
upon the wicked after death. For the whole argument of that
be ok
Chap. VII. by the Thihfophen. 41 1
book is fo conduced as to exclude future punirtiments. His pro-
fefled defign is to fortify men againll the fear of death, by proving
that death is no evil. And his reafoning turns upon this point,
that either our fouls fhall be extinguiflied at death, and then we
fliall have no fenfe of evil j or if they furvive, and depart to another
place (as he endeavours to prove they will) we (liall be happy, and
there is no future mifery to fear. And indeed, it may be obferved
concerning the philofophers in general, that in all their confola-
tbns againft death, or difcourfes to (hew that death is not to be
feared, they conftantly argue thus. That death fliall be either an
extindion of being, and a ftate of utter infenfibility, or a remove
to a better place j and they never once put the fuppofition of the
foul's being expofed to any evil or mifery in a future flate. The
alternative ftill was this, that they were either to be happy after
death, or not to be at all. *' Si maneat beati funt," fays Cicero j
or, as Seneca has it, " Aut beatus, aut nullus,"
What httle regard Cicero himfelf, or even the Roman people
in general, had to the dodtrine of future punifliments, is evident
from that noted paflage in his oration for Aulus Cluentius, deli-
vered before the judges, and a public affembly of the people. He
is there fpeaking of one Oppianicus, whom he reprefents as the
worft of men, guilty of the mofl: atrocious crimes, of repeated
murders of his wives and ne.ireft relations, and other heinous ads
of wickednefs, for which he was at length condemned and ba-
nifhed. And he obferves, that if he had been a man of fpirit, he
would have chofen rather to have put an end to his own life, than
to have endured the miferies of his exile. And as he was dead at
Ggg 2 the
41* Future Piinijhments generally rejeSlcd Part I IF.
the time when Cicero made this oration, he afks, " What evil hath
" death brought upon him, except we are induced by filly fables
" to think that he fuffers the puniiliments of the wicked in the
*' infernal regions, and that he has met with more enemies there
" than he left behind him here } and that by the punifliments in-
" flided upon him for what he had done to his mother-in-law,
" his wives, his brother and children, he is precipitated headlong
" into the abodes of the wicked ? If thefe things are falfe, as all
" men underftand them to be, what has death taken from him
" but a fenfe of pain (/) ?" I do not think there can be a more
exprefs declaration againft future punifliments. And certainly, if
fuch monfters of wickednefs, as Oppianicus is reprefented to have-
been, fuffer no punilliment in another world, no man has reafon.
to fear them.
Seneca has a very ftrong paflage to the fame purpofe, in which^.
after abfolutely rejeding the ftories of future torments, as fables
and idle terrors invented by the poets, he afTerts, that " the dead
" man is affefted with no evils." — " Nullis defundtum malis af-
'• fici :"' — that " death is the end and a releafe from alt our pains
" and forrows, beyond which our evils do not extend : and that it
"^ replaceth us in the fame ftate of tranquility we were in before
(/) " Nam nunc quidem quid tandem mail illi mors attulit ? Nifi forte incptiis
" ac fabulis ducimur, ut exiflimcmus ilium apud inferos impiorum fupplicia p«r-
*' ferre, ac plures illic offendifTe inimicos quam hie reliquifTet ? A focrus, ab
"■ uxorum, a fratris et liberorura poenis aiftum cfTe pcaccipitem in impiorum fcdem.
" atquc regionem : qux fi falfa fint, id quod omncs intcUigunt, quid ci tandem
" oliud mors cripuit, praeter fcofum doloris ?" Orat. pro A. Cluentio, cap. 6r .
" we
Chap. VII. by the Pkifofophers. 41^
" we were born [k)." The obfervation I made on Cicero holds
equally with refpeft to Seneca. If he had contented himfelf with
merely rejeding and ridiculing the poetical fables, he might have
been excufed : but it is evident that both thefe philofophers rejedted-
the very fubftance of the dodtrine itfelf, and allowed no future
punifhments at all. The fame may be faid concerning Epidetus-
and the Stoics in general : as to which I refer the reader to what
is obferved here above, p. 165, 166. et p. 327, 328,
Plutarch (as was obferved before) in his treatife De fera numi-
nis vindidta, argues for the immortality of the foul, and feems to
aflert the juftice of God, and future rewards and punifhments ;
yet in that very treatife he gives it as his own opinion, that the
wicked need no other punifliments, but their own bad lives and
adlions. " I am of opinion (faith he) if it be lawful to fay fo,
" that wicked men need neither the gods nor men to punifli them :
" but their own life, being wholly corrupted and full of pertur-
" bation, is a fufficient punifliment (/)." And in his treatife to
fhew that it is not poffible to live pleafurably according to the
tenets of Epicurus, he calls the fear of punifliment after death
fuperftition J and afterwards he calls it to -urai/'fxsc l-Kcun Seis,
" that childifh fear ;" and reprefents what was faid of them as
" fabulous ftories, and the tales of mothers and nurfes (w)."
{k) " Mors omnium dolorum et folutio eft et finis : ultra qiiam mala noflra
"■ non exeunt : quK nos in illam tranquiliitatcm, in qua antequam nafceremur ja-
" cuimus, reponit." In Confoi. ad Marciam, cap. 19.
(/) Plutarch. Opera, torn. II. p. 566. D. edit. Xyl.
(m) Ibid. p. 1 104, B, C. 1105. B;
In
414. Future Ptimjkmenn generally rejeBed Part III.
In his celebrated trad of fuperftition, he expreffes himfelf as if
he looked upon all fear of God, at leaft confidered as a punilher,
to be fuperftition : and that the man that fcareth God, who is
every-where prefent, and whom nothing can efcape, muft be
miferable. He blames thofe who look upon the evils and cala-
mities which befal them, as divine puniftimejits inflided upon
them for their fins («). But efpecially he cenfures thofe who
have a dread of future puniihments and torments after death, and
condemns all fear of that kind as groundlefs, and the efted of a
foolilli fuperftition, without making any diftinftion, or giving tlie
leaft hint that there are punifliments prepared for wicked men in
a future ftate. He finds fault witli fuperftition for not looking
upon death to be the end of life, but extending its fears beyond it,
and for connedling with death the imagination of immortal evils,
^VvxTTTOiV TO) SracyxTco y.a,y.(tiv eTTivoiccv a^acvaTMV (<?). I WOulu ob-
fcrve by the way, that this treatife of Plutaixh, which is written
in a very elegant and artful manner, and has been very much ad-
mired, and often quoted by our modern fceptical writers, and
oppofers of Revelation, has been very well anfwered, and the falfe
reafoning and fophiftry of it expofed by the learned biftiop of
(h) Thofe no doubt are in the wrong, who interpret all tlie misfortunes of
liiiman life, which befal themfclves or others, as divine judgments. But that ia
many cafes it is highly juft and proper to regard the affli(flions and calamities which
happen to us, as fent by God to correft and punifh us for our fins, is not only the
doiftrine of the Holy Scriptures, but perfe(ftly agreeable to the diftatcs of found
reafon, on fuppofuion there is a God and a Providence ; and if really believed,
muft have a good effeft on the religious and moral conduiit. And that Plutorch
had a notion of Divine Jufticc purfuing and puulfliing men for their fins, appears
from his excellent traft De fera numinis vindifta.
(e) Plutarch. Opera, torn. II. p. 166. F.
Gloucefter,
Chap. VII. By the Phtlofophers. 41 y
Gloucefter, in the laft edition of his Divine Legation of Mofes
demonftrated [p).
There is another confideration of great moment, which has
been llrongly urged by the laft-mentioned celebrated author, to
prove that the philofophers did not believe future puniflimcnts. It
is drawn from a remarkable paffage of Cicero, in which he rcpre-
fents it as the opinion of all the philofophers, not only of thofe
who denied a Providence, but of thofe who acknowledged it,
that God is never angry, nor hurts any perfon. Some learned
men, who are unwilling to admit the confequence which fcems
naturally to follow from it, are of opinion, that it is capable of a
favourable interpretation ; and that it is only defigned to fignify,
that the Deity has no anger or paflion like that which is in us, nor
is ever carried by it to do hurt to his creatures. But Cicero feems
to carry it much farther, fo as not only to exclude all perturbation
from the divine mind, but all pvunitive juftice. His manner of
introducing it is remarkable. He is fpeaking of Regulus's ftri<ft
regard to the oath he had taken, even though he thereby expofed
himfelf to the fevereft torments and death. And then he fuppofes-
an objedlion made, that Regulus adted a foolifh part, fince if he
had violated his oath he had nothing to fear from Jupiter. " For
" it is a principle univerfally held by all the philofophers, both
" thofe who fay that God never meddleth with the affairs of men,
** and thofe who think he is always adlive and concerning himfelf
" about us, that God is never angry, nor hurteth any one." He
(/) Vol. II. book iii. k€i. 6, p. 257, et feq,
anfwers.
4.i6 Future Punijljmenti generaUy reje5fed Part III.
anfwers, " That in an oath its binding force is to be confidered :
" for an oath is a religious affirmation ; and what a man pro-
" miles, as it were calling God to witnefs, ought to be kept ;
•' not out of fear of the anger of the gods, for there is no fuch
" thing, but out of a regard to juftice and fidelity {q)." There
is another pallage of Cicero, in the fecond book of his Offices,
which it is proper to mention on this occafion. Having propofed
to treat of thofe things which may be moft beneficial or hurtful to
men, he obfervcs it as a thing generally believed, that to hurt
men is incompatible with the divine nature : and feems to give
this as a reafon for taking no particular notice of the gods in tliat
place (r). This may be compared with a remarkable paflage of
Seneca, wTiich I mentioned before, but which ought not to be
omitted here. Having obferved that the gods are carried to do
good by the goodnefs of their own nature, he adds, That " they
" neither will nor can hurt any one : they can neither fuffer an
" injury nor do it ; for whatfoever is capable of doing hurt, is
" capable alfo of receiving it. That fupreme and mofl excellent
*' nature, of which they are partakers, both exempts them from
(?) " Qll'd ^ ig'tn'', dixerit aliquis, in jurejurando ? Num iiatum timcmus
" Jovem ? At hoc quidem commune eft omnium philofophorum ; non eorum
" modo qui Deum nihil habere ipfum ncgotii dicunt, nihil exhiberc alteri, fed
" eorum etiam qui Deum femper agere aliquid et raoliri volant, nunquam nee
" irafci Deum, nee nofccre. Hxc quidem ratio, non magis contra Regulum quam
" contra omne jusjurandum valet. Sed in jurejurando non qui metus, fed qui
" vis fit debet intelligi : eft enim jusjurandum affirmatio rcligiofa. Quod autem
" affirmati qnafi Deo teftc promiferis, id tenendum eft : jam enim non ad iram
" deorum qua; nulla eft, fed ad juftitiam et fidem pertinct." De Offic. lib. iii.
cap. 28, 29.
(r) De Oflic, lib. ii. cap. 2.
" dansers
Chap. VII. by the Philofophers. 417
" dangers themfelves, and renders them not dangerous to
" others {s)." Where he feems to affirm, that no hurt or dan-
ger is ever to be apprehended from the gods, as being contrary
to their nature. Marcus Antoninus, fpealcing of the intelligence
which governs the univerfe, faith, that no one is hurt by it (/).
And he argues, that " if there be gods, then leaving the world is
" no fuch dreadful thing, for you may be fure they will do you
" no hurt." Upon which Dacier remarks, that " the Stoics bc-
" lieved there was nothing to fear after death, becaufe it was con-
" trary to the nature of God to do ill to any one (//)."
It muft be acknowledged, that there is no fmall difficulty in
thefe and other pafTages of the like kind, which occur in the writ-
ings of the antients. If they are to be taken in the ftrifleft fenfe,
we muft fuppofe them to have held, that no puniflimcnt was to
be apprehended from God either here or hereafter : and this
would in its confequences deftroy a Providence, which yet. there
is good reafon to think Cicero, as well as feveral others of the
phiiofophers, and particularly the Stoics, believed. In the pafTage
above cited from him, he fuppofes God to be a witnefs of the
oath, and yet not to be an avenger of the perjury, or angry at it j
{s) " Ons caufa eft diis bcnefaciendl ? Natim. Errat fiquis piitnr cos nocci'c
" velle. Non polTunt. Nec^cciperc injuriam queiinr, nee faccrc. Lcedeveenim
" Iredique conjunftum eft. Siimma ilia et pukhciiima omnium natura, quos p^ri-
" colo exemit, ne periculofos qiiidcm fncir." Sen. cpift. 95. Sic .1!' ''
Ira, lib. ii. cap. 27. quoted above, p. 167.
(/) Anton. Med. book vi. feifl. i.
(11) See Divine Legation of Mofcs, Vol.11, p. 186. marg. note, jth. edit.
Vol. II. H h h wluJi
41 8 Flit lire Funijlitnenti generally rejcBcd Part III.
which is certainly a moil inconfillent fchenie, Ids defenfible
than that of Epicurus, who fuppofcd the gods were far removed
from our world, and knew nothing of our affairs, nor ever gave
thcmfclves the leaft concern about them. A. very learned and in-
genious writer has endeavoured to account for this, by fuppofing
that when Cicero reprefents it as the univcrfal dodtrine of the phi-
lofophers, that God is never angry, nor hurts any one, it is to be
underffood of the higheft God, who> they fuppofcd, did not con-
cern himfelf immediately with mankind, but committed the fe-
veral regions of the univerfe to the vicegerency and government
of inferior deities : and that thefe have paflions and affedlions, and
by them alone, according to their opinion, a particulai* providence
is adminiftred (x). But this, I am afraid, will not folve the dif-
ficulty. For in that very paffage Cicero fpeaks not merely of God,
but of the gods, " Ira deorum nulla eft," — " Tlie gods have no
*' anger." And it is of the gods that Seneca fays, in the paffage
I have quoted from him, that they neither will nor can hurt any
one, nor is any danger to be apprehended from them. And this
he, as well as Cicero, fuppofes to be infeparable from the divine
nature, of which they are all partakers. Befides, if the inferior
gods, to whom the adminiftration of things relating to mankind
was committed, were fuppofcd to be angry, and to be avengers of
the perjury, it would deftroy the force of Cicero's argument as here
managed : fince on this fuppofition the frar of their anger or of
punifhment from them, might be fuppofcd to have had an in-
fluence to deter Regulus from violating his oath, which Cicero
(x) Divine Legation of Mofcs, Vol.11, p. 194,
Chap. Til. hy the Philofophers. -419
will not allow {y). For it is to be obferved, that he here all alon^
goes upon the Stoical fcheme, that virtue and fidelity is to be prc-
ferved for its own fake, without regard to any reward or punhh-
ment, but what flows from the nature of the adions them-
felves.
What increafes the difficulty with regard to that paffage of Ci-
cero, 15, that he reprefents that maxim that God or the gods are
never angry, nor do hurt to any one, as common to all the philo-
fophers, both to the Epicureans who denied a Providence, and to
thofe who owned it. And every one knows, that Epicurus in-
tended by it to free men from all fear of punifliment from the
gods ; and when Cicero joins the other philofophers with the Epi-
cureans, as all agreeing that there is no anger in the gods, it looks
as if the one as well as the other maintained, that no punifliment
is to be feared or apprehended from them. And yet I can hardly
bring myfelf to think, that thofe philofophers who really believed
a Providence, intended by that maxim to fignify, that tlic gods
had no difpleafure againft fin and wickednefs, nor ever chaftifcd
men on the account of it. Seneca himfelf, in his Cf^th. epiflle,
foon after the words above produced from him, fiith, " The
(y) In the conrfe of the argument, Cicero takes it for granted, that Jupiter
hlmfclf, if he had been angry, and had puniihcd Regnlus for violating Iiis oath,
could not ha\'c iiiflifltd a greater punifliment upon him, than he brought upon
himfelf by keeping his oath, and returning to the Carthaginians, who put him to
a cruel death. This feems to fuppofc, that it is not in the power of God himfdf to
inflift a greater punifliment upon men than tlicy can iiifli<fl upon one anoiher : and
that temporal and bodily death is the worft any man has to fear from God. This
puts his difpleafure upon an equal footing with that of an earthly prince ; and is very
dif&rent from the doftrine taught by our Saviour, Lukcxii. 4, 5.
H li h 2 " gods
42 0 Future Punijlments generally rejeBed Part II!.
" gods neither caufe evil, nor fuffer evil : yet they chaftife fome
" perlbus, and reftrain them, and lay penalties upon them, and
" Ibmetimes punilh them in a way that looks hke doing them
" hurt." — " Hi nee dant malum, nee habent: csteriim caftigant
" quofdam et coercent, et irrogant pcenas, et aliquando fpecie
" mali puniunt." Where he reprelents the gods as laying chaf-
tifements and coercions upon men, and as fometimes infliding
punhhments upon them, which have the appearance of evil.
Stobasus gives it as the dodlrine of the Stoics, that " fince the
" gods love virtue and its works, and have an averfion to vice
" and the things which are wrought by it, and fin is the work
" or eftccl of vice, it is manifeft that all fin is difpleafing to the
" gods, and is an impiety." — Karg^a/cgTo -jB-ar ixiJLcc^riiy.x ccvrd'-
pet^ov ^eaik 'Czrct^^oi'-, tkto <^e sq-if da-eS»/j.cc. It is added, that " a
" bad man in every fin he commits does fomething difpleafing to
" the gods." — 'A7ra^e<rov n Troia ^ioli- And yet they feem to allow
no proper punifiiments of evil adlions from the gods, but what
flow from the nature of the evil adtions themfelves {z).
There is a paflage in Plato's Philcbus, in which he reprefente
the gods as incapable cither of rejoicing or the contrary, bts ^at-
pm S-Sis BT£ TO ivxvTiov (^). Aud yet, in his tenth republic, he
reprefents the good or jull man as beloved, and the wicked or
unjuft man as hated by God or the gods ; which furely argues
his being pleafed or taking a complacency in the one, and liaving
(2) Slob. Eclog. Ethic, lib. ii p. 182. edit. Plantin.
{1) Platon. Opera, p. 8 1 .
a jufl.
Chap. VIL h the Philofophers. 4211
a juft difpleafure agalnft the other [b). And indeed, to fay he
hateth the wicked, feems to be a ftronger exprcfiion than to fay-
he is angry at him. The fame eminent philofopher mentions it
with approbation as an antient tradition, that " jullice always ac-
" companies the Deity, and is a puniflier of thofe that tranfgrefs
" the divine law (c)." This paflage is cited by Plutarch, who
fcems to approve it {d). And in his treatife De fera numinis vin-
dida, he calls God the author or maker of juflice, Siy.))i Sifxinp-
yrjv, and faith, that to him it belongs to determine when, and in
what manner, and to what degree, to punidi every one of the
wicked (e).
The people in general had a notion of the divine juftice in pu-
nifliing offenders, and of avaiging deities. And in this the poets
generally expreffed themfelves agreeably to the popular fentiments.
And as a fenfe of guilt is apt naturally to create great uneafinefs
and anxious fears, this gave occafion, in the flate of darknefs and
ignorance they were in, to much fuperftition, and many expedients
for averting the difpleafure of the gods The Epicureans pre-
tended an effedlual remedy againft all this, by denying a Provi-
dence, or that the gods take any notice of men or their adlions.
The other philofophers, who acknowledged a Providence, though
they could not deny that vice and wickednefs was difpleafing to
{b) Platon. Opera, p. 521.
(c) IbiJ. p. 600. G. See the pafTage cited above, p. 403, 404.
{(!) Plutarch. Amator. Opera, torn. II. p. 11 24. edit. Xyl.
(«) IblJ. p. 550. A.
the
4S«- Future runijhmenfs generally rejeSleii, ^c. Part III.
the Deity, yet endeavoured to make themfelvcs and others eafy,
by making fuch reprcfcntations of the Divine Goodnefs as were
not well confident witli reftoral jufticc. And they carried their
notions of God's being never angry, and of his being by nature
incapable of doing hurt, fo fir as in a great meafure to take away
the fear of punilhment. Or if they allowed that God or the gods
fometimes intlidt puniflimcnts upon men in this prefent ftate, yet they
feem generally to have rejedled thofe of the life to come. It is true,
that they could not help acknowledging that it was ufefi.il to fociety
that the people ihould believe them j and accordingly they fre-
quently expreffed themfelvcs in a popular way, as if they thought it
reafonable to admit, that there are punifhments prepared for bad men
after death, but at other times they plainly difcarded them, and
reprefented all fears of that kind as the efteds of fuperftition ; and
this, as fhall be fhewn in the next chapter, came at length to have
a very bad effed upon the people themfelves. There was therefore
great need of a Divine Revelation, to awaken in men a fenfe of the
Divine Juftice, and of the dreadful confequences of a life of fin
and difobedience. The great ufefulnefs and excellency of the Gof-
pel Revelation appears in this, that not only the future happinefs
of the righteous is placed in the moft glorious light, but the wrath
of God is there revealed from heaven againft all ungodlinefs and
unrighteoufnefs of men.
CHAP.
Chap. VIII. The Dijbdief of a future State, &c. 423
CHAP. VIII.
T/je generality of the people, cfpecially in the politer nations of
Greece and Rome, had fallen in a great meafure from the belief
of a future fate before the time of our Saviours appearing.
This is particularly Jhcwn concerning the Greeks, by the tejli-
monies of Socrates and Polybius. The fame thing appears 'with
regard to the Romans. Future punifmients were difregarded
and ridiculed even among the vulgar, who in this fell from the
religion of their ancejlors. The refurrecTion of the body rejetled
by the philofophers of Greece and Rome.
WE have pretty largely confidered the fentiments of the
philofophers with regard to the immortality of the fouJ
and a future ftatc. And it appears that inftead of confirming and
eftablifhing the antient traditions concerning it, which had fpread.
very generally among the nations, they greatly weakened and cor-
rupted it» In this as well as other inftances, whilfl they pre-
tended to an extraordinary penetration above the vulgar, tliey
helped to lead them aftray, and fubverted fome of the moft im-
portant principles, which lie at the foundation of all religion.
Many of them abfolutely and avowedly rejeifted the doftrine of
the immortality of the foul, and a future ftate of rewards and pu-
nishments, and treated it with contempt and ridicule. Others
talked very waveringly and. uncertainly about it. This had a bad
ia£uence upon the people, efpecially in Greece, where they af-
fe«fled
4a4 The Dijhelief of a future State Part III.
fcded to be admirers of wifdom, and to be thought to excel the
rcrt: of mankind in knowledge.
What the fentiments of the Athenians were upon this fubjed,
even fo early as the time of Socrates, plainly appears from feveral
paflages of Plato's Phasdo. One of Socrates's difciples, Cebes,
tells him, that the do^^rine he taught concerning the immortality
of the foul and a future ftate, " met with little credit among men."
rjsAAwy ccTTt^lxi' ■irxpx" «''-2^fwTo<5. That " moft men feemed to
" think that the foul was immediately difTolved at death, and
" that it vanilhed and was diflipated, like the wind or fmoke, or
" became nothing at all : and that it needed no fmall perfuafion
" and faith to believe that the foul exifts, and has fome power
** and intelligence after the man is dead (/)." Socrates himfelf
had faid the fame thing juft before, that his dodrine was not
behevcd by the generality. ToTi -uroAAoii '^iJoc^jKrixv -znocoi^a. Sim-
mias, another of the dialogifts in the Pha;do, reprefents it as the
opinion of many, that the foul is diflipated when a man dies,
and that this is the end of its exifl;ence {g). And Socrates, fpeak-
ing of the foul's being blown away, and perifliing with the body,
declares, that this was what was faid by moft men, w',- (txan- ol
From thefe teftimonies it plainly appears, that the mortality of
the foul was a dodrine which prevailed among the Athenians in
(/) Plato. Opera, p. 380. C, H. ct p. 381. A. edit. LugJ.
(g) Ibid. p. 384. C.
(*) Ibid. p. 385. G.
tiiC
Chap. VIII. became very general among the Greeks. 42 ^
the time of Socrates, who were looked upon as the mofl learned
and polite of all the Grecians. This fliews, that the reprefenta-
tions of a future ftate made in the myfteries had no great effed
among the Athenians, in preferving or promoting the belief of a
future flate, though there were no people who profefTcd a greater
veneration for the myfleries than they did, in which they were
generally initiated. And indeed thofe reprefentations were little
fitted to beget the folid belief of it in thofe that attended upon
them. A future ftate was not taught there in grave and ferious
difcourfes, fo as to inflrudl the people to form proper notions con-
cerning it, but by fhows and reprefentations which might flrike
the fenfes, and make fome prefent imprcfTions on the imagina-
tion, but were not fitted to enlighten the underftanding, and pro-
duce a real and lading convidlion in the mind. And there is no
great reafon to think, that the ftate of things among the Athenians
grew better afterwards, but rather the contrary. Since it was after
the days of Socrates, that the Cyrenaics, Cynics, Stoics, arofe and
flouriftied, and the wide extended fedl of the Epicureans, as well
as thefeveral kinds of Sceptics, all of whom either abfolutely de-
nied a future ftate, or reprefented it as utterly uncertain.
And as to thofe of the people who believed a future ftate, and
fome kind of happinefs rcfcrved for good men after derith, they
fcem to have entertained no very encouraging notions of it, and to
have had low and mean ideas of that future felicity. Though
they reprelcnted the condition of good men after death in the
Vol II. I i i lower
426 ^e D'.JhcTief of a futur<: State Part UL
lower regions as preferable to that of the wicked, yet they looked
upon it to be uncomfortable at bell, and that the ftate of thofe
who continued in life was much more dcfirablc. Thus in Ho-
mer's Odyffes, Achilles (though he was one of the heroic fouls)
tells UlyfTeSy who met him in the fliades below, that he had ra-
ther be a ruftic on earth, ferving a poor man for hire, and having
but fcanty fare, than to have a large empire over all the dead.
There are other paffagcs of Homer to the fame purpofe, which
make a melancholy rcprefentation of the ftate of the dead in
Hades, even thofe of them that were in Elyfium : though he
fometimes reprefents it, as. Virgil does afterwards, as a deleg-
able region.
Plato in the beginning of his third Republic, takes notice of
feveral of thofe paflages in Homer, in which the fouls in Hades
are reprefented as difconfolate and lamenting their condition. And
he finds fault with them on a political account, as tending to
weaken mens courage, and make them afraid of death. But the
authority of Homer, who was looked upon as a great divine, and
in a manner infpired, would go farther with the people than that
of Plato, whofe fublime fpeculations were comparatively little re-
garded. And he himfelf in his Cratylus, where he endeavours
to give high and honourable thoughts of Pluto and Hades, yet re-
prefents it as greatly dreaded by the vulgar, who looked upon it
as a difmal and gloomy abode. So that thofe among the people
who believed a future ftate, could not be properly faid to hope
for it. It was rather to them an objeft of dread : and therefore
St.
Chap. VIII. became very general among the Greeks. ^•417
St. Paul juftly gives it as the characfler of the Heathens in gene-
ral, that they were " without hope (/)."
There is a remarkable paflage of Polybius, which ihews that
the belief of a future ftate was in his time become very common
and falhioiiable, both among perfons of fuperior rank, and among
the lower kind of people. That fage author blames the great
men and magiftrates as very much wanting in true policy, in that,
whereas the antients had with great wifdom propagated the belief
of a future (late, and particularly of future punifliments among
the multitude, which could fcarce be kept in order but by the
terror of thofe punishments > the men of that age inconfiderately
and abfurdly rejedled them, and thereby encouraged the people to
defpife thofe terrors. And to this he attributes the great and ge-
neral want of honefty among the Greeks, and the little regard
that was paid to an oath or to their truft [k). The learned bifliop
of Gloucefter, who has quoted that paflage at large, makes this
juft obfervation upon it, that Polybius afcribes the approaching
ruin of the Greeks, and their having fallen from their ancient vir-
tue and glory to " a certain libertinifm, which had fpread amongfl
" the people of condition, who piqued themfelves on a penetra-
" tion fuperior to their anceflors and to the people, of regarding,
" and prepofteroufly teaching others to regard, the reftraints of
" religion as illufory and unmanly (/)." And I cannot help ob-
(/) Eph. ii. 12. I TliefT. iv. 13.
(*) Polyb. Hift. lib. vl. cap. 54, 5:.
(I) Div. Leg. Vol.11, bookiii. (ta. i. p. 7y, 80, St. 4tli cJll.
1 i i 2 fcrving
42'8 The Romans alfo fell from their anttcnt Part TIT.
ferving- that Polybius himfelF, 'who confiders this matter merely
as a politician, in that very pafiage where he blames the great men
among the Greeks for encouraging the people to difbelieve and de-
fpile future punifhments, reprefents them as no better than ufeful
fidtions : and how could it be e\'pe(fled, that the people (hould Be
much influenced by notions, which they had reafon to think thofe
who propofed them to their belief did not themfelves believe ?
Polybius indeed, in the paffageTiere referred to, praifes the
Romans for having adled in this rri'atter much more wifely than
the Greeks, and fliewing a greater regard to religion, which, he
obferves, had a good effedt upon the morals of the people. And
it is true, that in the antient and moft virtuous times of the Ro-
man republic, the doctrine of a future flate, and particularly of
future punilhments, feems to have been generally received and be-
lieved among the people. But afterwards this dodtrine fell into
difcredit, and was defpifcd in the more learned and civilized, but
diflblute ages of the Roman flate, when they became abandoned
to vice and licentioufnefs. In proportion as the Greek learning
and philofophy made a progrefs among the Romans, the antient
traditionary belief of future rewards and punilhments was rc-
jedted. How much the difbelief of future retributions prevailed
among the great men and gentlemen at Rome appears from what
Caefar faid in full fenate in his fpeech on occafion of Catiline's
confpiracy, where he openly declares, that " to thofe that live in
** forrow and mifery, death is a repofe from their calamities, not
" a torment: that it puts an end to all the evils mortals are
" hibjca:
Chap. VIII. Belief of a future State. 475)
" fulije(fl to : and that beyond it there is no place left for anguiili
" or joy." " In ludtu atque miferiis mortem xrumnarum rc-
" quiem, non cruciatum efle ; earn cundta mortalium mala dif-
" folvere : ultra neque curae neque gaudio locum effe (w)." Here
he probably exprefles the general fentiments of the Roman gentle-
men at that time, as well as his own ; or elfe he would not have
delivered himfelf thus on that occafion, when it was his intereft
not to fay any thing -which might give offence to his hearers (//).
Cato, in his celebrated fpeech in anfwer to Casfar, flightly paflcs
over what he had faid againfl a future flate, with only infinuat-
ing, that " Caefar looked upon thofe things to be fables, wliich
" are related concerning the Infcri, where bad men, far from the
" the manfions of the virtuous, are conirned to dreary abodes,
" abominable and full of horrors." " Cselar bene et compofitc
" paulo ante in hoc ordine de vita et morte diffcruit, credo, falfa
" exiftumans ea quae de Inferis memorantur, diverfo itinere malos
a bonis loca tetra, inculta, foeda, atque formidolofa habere (0)."
(m) Apud Salluft. Bel. Cadiin. cap. tp.
[n) That this continued to be the prevailing opinion among the gentlemen of
Rome, may be gathered from what Pliny the famous naiur.nlift, who lived a con-
siderable time after Ca:far, confidently pronounces. " All men are in the fame con-
" dition after their lafl: day as before their firfi: ; nor have they any more fenfe ei-
" ther in body or foul after they are dead, than before they were born." " Om-
" nibus a fupremo die cidem quas ante primum ; nee magis a morte fenfus ullus,
" aut corporis aut anima:, quam ante natalem." And in what follows, he en-
deavours to expofe the abfurdity of that opinion which attributes immortality to
the foul : and fays, " that thcfe are chiLliili and fenfclefs ficlions of mortals, who
" are ambitious of a never-ending exiftence." — " Puerilium ilia deliramentorum,
" avidacque nunquam definere mortalitaiis commenta funt." Hift. Nat. lib. vii.
cap. 55.
(e) Sallufl. ubi fuprn, cap. 52.
Aod
430 Future Punifjinents defpifed Part III.
And Cicero in his fourth oration againft Catiline, fpoken on the
fame occafion, fays, " That in order to deter wicked men, the
" antients v/ould have it beUeved, that punifhments were prepared
" for the impious in the infernal regions, that they might be un-
*' der the influence of fear in this life, becaufe they were fenfible,
" that if thefe were taken away death itfclf was not to be dread -
" ed." " Itaquc ut aliqua in vita formido improbis efiet pofita,
" apud inferos ejufmodi quasdam illi antiqui fupplicia impiis con-
" flituta cfle voluerunt : quod videlicet intelligebant, his remotis,
" non efle mortem ipiam pertimefcendam (/>)•" It is obfervable
tliat both Cato and Cicero mention the dodtrine of future punifh-
ments as held by the antients; but neither of them charge Casfar
with falfliood or with impiety in denying it : nor does either
of them attempt to prove the truth of that dodrine, or offer any
arguments to fupport it. And indeed Cato, who was a rigid Stoic,
if he followed the opinions of his kOi, could lay little flrefs on
future punilhments, which they generally difcarded. And it ap-
pears from fcveral pafTages before produced, that Cicero looked
upon them to be vain and groundlefs terrors. What Caefar faid
in the fenate, Cicero declared more fully in an aflembly of the
Roman people : which he would not have done, if he had not
known that this was the opinion which generally prevailed among
the people at that time [q).
It has been already obfcrvcd, that in his fiifl book of the Tul-
culan Difputations, where he argues for the immortality of the
(/) Oiat. in Catilin. 410. fc<!>. 4,
(j) Sl-c here above, p. 412, ;
2 foul,
Chap. VIIL even by the Vulgar. ^^ i
foul, he reprefents the ftories of future punifliments as what fcarce
any body believed at Rome. To which may be added wb.at he
fays in the perfon ofBilbus in his fecond book of the Nature of
the Gods, " what old woman can be found fo fenfelefs, as to be
" afraid of the monftrous things in the infernal regions, which
" were antiently believed?" " Quas anus tarn excors inveniri po-
" teft:, quas ilia, qua; quondam credebantur, apud inferos portenta
" extimefcat (r)?" Juvenal, who, like the other poets, generally
fpeaks agreeably to the popular fentiments, fays the fame thing,,
and reprefents the antient accounts of the infernal regions as uni-
verfally defpifed and difbelieved even by the meaneft of the people.
" EfTe aliquos manes, et fubterranea regna,
*' Et contum, et Stygio ranas in gurgite nigras,
" Atque una tranfire vadum tot millia cymba
" Nee pueri credunt, nifi qui nondum a^re lavantur (i)."
Sextus Empiricus indeed pretends that there was as general a con-
fent in believing the poetic fables of hell, as in believing the being
of a God (/). But that famous fceptic does not reprefent this
matter fairly. He fays it only with a view to weaken the argu-
ment for the exiftence of a Deity drawn from the general confent
of nations concerning it. For the tcftimonies which have been
produced plainly fhew, that at the time when he writ, the ftories
about the Infcri met with very little credit in the world.
(r) De Nat. Deor. lib. ii cap. 2.
(x) Juven. Satyr. II. lin. 149. et ftq.
{J) Adverf. Phyfic. lib. viii. cip. 2.
I would
43 2 Future Tujvjlments dcfpjed Part III.
I would obferve by the way, that the poetical reprefentat'ons
of a future ftate, efpccially thofe relating to future punifliments,
were in effedt the fame that were made ufe of in the rayfteries,
and which, I have Qiev/n, were then little regarded even among
the people. \i is true, that Celfus in a paflage cited before, pre-
tends that the dodlrine of future punifliments was equally tauglit
among the Pagans as among the Chriftians, efpecially by thofe
who were the interpreters of the facred rites, and the myftagogues,
who initiated perfons into the myfteries, or prefided in them.
But then in what follows he fuppofes, that though both the my-
flagogues and the Chriftians taught future punifliments, yet they
differed in their accounts of them ; and that the queftion was,
which of their accounts were trueft. Origen in his refledions on tliis
paflage obferves, that it is reafonable to think, that they had the
truth on their fide, whofe dodrine on this head had fuch an in-
fluence on their hearers, that they lived as if they were perfuadcd
of the truth of it : that the Jews and Chriftians are mightily af-
feded with the perfuafion they have of the future rewards of good
men, and punifliments of the wicked. Bur, fays he, " let Cel-
" fus, or any other man that pleafes, flicw any perfons who have
" been wrought upon by the terrors of the eternal punifliments
" as reprefented by the myflagogues:" where he intimates, that
the myfteries had very little eftcd, and made fmall impreflions
on the minds of men {u). And he elfewhere obferves, that Celfus
thought, that tlij Chriftians only feigned the things they taught
concerning a future ftate, to fill the vulgar with amazement, and
((/) Origen cont. Cdf. lib. \ili. p. 40S, 409. edit. Spcnftr.
did
Ch:\p.V[U. even h the Fulgar. 433
did not declare the truth ; and compares them with thofe who in
the Bacchanahan myftcries produced t« fxoy.aToc v.%\ SioycLtXt
fpedlres and terrible appearances ; where Celfus fccms plainly to
intimate that the reprefentations made of thele things in the my-
fteries were only fidtions defigned to frighten the people, and had
no foundation in truth (.v). To which Origen anfwers, whether
what is laid concerning the Bacchanalian myfteries be credible or
not, let the Greeks declare : the Chriftians are only concerned to
defend their own dodrines.
Strabo an author juftly efleemed, who flourhl:ied under the
reign of the emperor Auguftus, faith of the Indian Brachmans,
that they compofed fables, like Plato, concerning the immortality
of the foul, and the judgments of Hades ; where he feems to pro-
nounce all thefe things to be only fables and fidions (^'). Plutarch,
who lived fome time after the coming of our Saviour, in his trea-
tife which is defigned to prove, That it is not poflible to live plea-
furably according to the tenets of Epicurus, obferves, that the
vulgar, 01' -ircAAoi, the moft of mankind, were ready to admit,
what he calls " the fabulous hope of immortality, but that they
" had no fear of the punifliments faid to be in Hades," — a'jeu
<f3ty -nreo) Twr iv aJa (z). And again he fays, " there are not
^' many that fear thefe things:" and he treats them as fabulous
(x) Orig. contra Celt lib. iv. p. 167.
{_)>) Strab. lib. xv.
(z) Plutarch. Opcr. torn. II. p. iic.<. C. edit. Xyl.
Vol. IL Kkk relations.
434 ^<^.(J'^g<!^ ?/"^'^"<' ■P"'*'' Part III.
relations, and the tales of mothers and nurfes [a). The fanie
author in his trad De fera Numinis vindida, having faid that
during this Hfe the foul is in a confli(5t, and when that is over re-
ceives according to its deferts, adds " but what rewards or pu-
" nillimcnts the foul being alone [i. e. ftparated from the body]
" receives for the things done in the part life, are nothing to
" us who are alive, but are difbelieved, and hid from us," —
iViv iiai tzrpo; ^,w.as \^(tivt(x.i-^ aAA' u.Ti^%y'TM J^ AaeOacafTir- Where
he fliews that in his days the rewards and punifhments of a fu-
ture ftate were little regarded or believed by the generality of the
Heathens, and were looked upon as things that did not concern
them. And the truth is, that in the Pagan theology, provided a
man were diligent in obferving the eftablifhed rites of worfliip to-
wards the popular dfeities, he might pafs for a religious man,
though he believed nothing at all of the world to come. But no
fooner did they embrace Chriftianity, but it wrought in them
the moft firm and folid perfuafion of a future ftate of rewards and
puniOimentSj which neither their boafted myfteries, nor the writ-
ings of their ableft philofophers, were able to effedl before.
I have hitherto taken little notice of the writings of the poets.
There are fcveral paflages in them, which proceed upon the fup-
pofition of the rewards and punifliments of a future ftate. And
fomething of this kind made a part of the poetical machinery ;
yet they exprefs thcmfelves on feveral occafions, as if they thought
death brought an utter extindion of being, and took away all
{a) Plutarch. Opera, torn. 11. p, 1105. B. edit. Xyl.
fcnfc
Chap. VIII. agahift a future State. 435
fenfe of evil. Plutarch, in his Confolation to Apollonius, quotes
this paffage of an antient poet, that no grief or evil touches
the dead,
He there alfo cites another paflage from a poet, lignifying that
the dead man is in the fame condition he was in before he was
born [b). Stobaeus afcribes the firfl of thefe pafTages to iEfchylus.
There are pafliiges of the fame kind in Epicharmus, in Sophocles,
Euripides, and Aftydamas, referred to by the learned Dr. Whitby,
who all, fays he, agree in this, that the dead are fenfible of no
grief or evil {c).
As to the Roman poets, I need not mention the famous Lucretius,
who publifhed a fyftem of Epicurianifm, which he endeavoured
to recommend to his countrymen, by all the charms of poetry,
and particularly extolled his philofophical hero for freeing mea
from the dread of puniflTimcnts after death. And it is well known,
that both the Greek and Roman poets draw arguments from this
confideration, that life is fhort, and death (liall put an utter end
to our exiftence; to urge men to lay hold on the prefent oppor-
tunity for giving a full indulgence to their appetites, according to
that libertine maxim, " let us eat and drink, for to-morrow wc
" die." Several paiTages of this kind might be produced froni
(h) Plutarch. Opera, p. 109. E.
(c) Whitby's Cominenuiry on 2 Tim. i. io.
K k k 2 Strato
43 (J P^[fage^ of the Poets Part IPI.
Strato and others of the Greeks, To the fame purpofe is that
noted paffage of Catullus,
" Vivamus, mea Lefbla, atque amemus —
" Soles occidere et redire poflunt :
" Nobis cum feme! occidit brevis lux,
'* Nox eft perpetua una dormienda."
and Horace,
" Vitae fumma brevis fpem nos vetat inchoare longam ;
" Jam nox te premet fabulaeque Manes."
Lib. I. Ode iv. i f.
See alfo lib. i. Ode 1 1. and other paflages of the fame kind. Per-
iius alfo reprefcnts it as the language of many in his time,
" Indulge genio : carpamus dulcia : noftrum eft
" Quod vivis : cinis et Manes et fabula fies."
Satyr, v, 151, 15-2.
I ftiall only add one paflage more from Seneca the Tragedian,
" Poft mortem nihil eft, ipfaque mors nihil —
" Qutcris quo jaceas poft obitum loco,
*' Quo non nata jacent."
I would conclude with obferving, that as to the refurredlon
of the body, neither the philofophers nor the vulgar among the
Greeks and Romans feem to have had any notion of it. Wlien
St. Paul in his excellent difcourfe to the Athenians fpoke of the re-
1. furredlion
Ghap.VIir. again/i a future S fate. 437
furredtion of the dead, we are told his hearers mocked or treated
it with contempt, as a ftrange dodlrine which they had ncvsr
heard of before {d). The Epicureans and Stoics are particularly
mentioned. But it was equally true of all the other kds of phi-
lofophers. Thofe who argued moft for the immortality of the
foul, as the Pythagoreans and Platonifts, held the dodlrine of the
refurredlion of the body in contempt. And this indeed flowed
from the principles of their philofophy. For they looked upon
the body to be the prifon and fepulchre of tlie foul, into which it
was fent down by way of punifliment for lins committed in a
former flate : that the happinefs of the foul confifted in its being
loofed and difengaged from the body : and that a refurredlion of
the body, or the foul being again united to it, if it were poffible,
was far from being a dcfirable thing. Celfus calls it the hope of
worms, a very filthy and abominable, as well as an impoffible
thing : and that it is what God neither can nor will do, as being
bafe and contrary to nature {e). But it is to be obferved, that the
latter Platonifts and Pythagoreans, after Chriftianity appeared, fup-
pofed that purified fouls after their departure from the body were
inverted with fliining, agile, celeflial bodies, pretty nearly anfwer-
ing St. Paul's defcription of the rifen bodies of the faints, in the
noble account he gives of the change which (hall pafs upon them
at the refurredtion. And it is very probable, that, in this as well
as other inftances, they improved their notions from the Gofpel
difcoveries, though being no friends to Chriftianity, they were
{d) A(fls xvii. 18. 20. 32.
{e) Orig. cont. Celf. lib. v. p. 240,
unwilling
^^^3 The Refurrt^ion of the Body Part III.
unwilling to acknowledge the obligation. See Dr. Whitby, in
his Annotation's on i Cor. xv. 44..
It is Hiid, indeed, that there was fome notion of the refurreftion
of the body among the antient Perfians. And fome think that to
this Diogenes Laertius has a reference, when he gives it as a part
of the dodtrine of the antient Magi, avct^ioi^i^vj. t»5 a'y^-^wVa;, i^
laiS^oLK cci^xt'clrm. " That men fliall live again, and be im-
" mortal (/ )•" And it is not improbable, that fome notion of
the rcfurredlion of the body might have been part of the original
tradition, derived along with the notion of the immortality of the
foul from the firft ages. That it obtained among the Jews a con-
fiderable time before the coming of our Saviour, appears from
the account given us of Eleazar, and of the mother and her feven
fons, who were put to the moft cruel torments for their religion
under the pcrfecution of Anticchus Epiphanes, and who comforted
themfelves with the hopes that God would raife them from the
idead (g). And to this the facred writer of the epiftle to the He-
brews probably refers, when he fpeaks of the good men in former
times, who " were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they
•' might obtain a better relurredlion (/')." From feveral pafTages
in the New TcHament it is evident, that this was a do(5lrine ge-
nerally received among the Jews, at the time of the firft publ idl-
ing of the Gofpel, except by the Sadducees, who for that reafon
(/) Lacrt. in Proosm. fegm. 9.
(g) 2 Maccab. chap, vi and vii.
(/') Htb. xi. 35.
had
Chap. YIU. rcje^ed l>y the Philofopbers. 4^;^
had an ill charader among the people. Cut the notions the Jews
generally entertained of the refurredion fccm to have been very
grols, as is manifefl from the objedion of the Sadducees againil it,
and which they were at a lofs how to anfwer, till our Saviour
taught them to form more juft and fublime notions concern-
ing it.
If therefore we fuppofe fome notion of the refurredtion of the
body to have been communicated to mankind in the £rft ages, it
became foon corrupted and obfcured. And fome learned perfons
have fuppofed, that the doftrine of the tranfmigration of fouls,
which became very general, was a corruption and depravation of
that docElrine, and at length greatly contributed to deflroy the true
notion of it.
Perhaps alfo it was owing to a corruption of the dodtrine of
the refurredtion of the body, that in many parts of the world,
where they held a life after this, the notion they had of it feems
to have been this, that it fhall be a life pcrfedlly like the prefent,
with the fame bodily wants, the fame exercifes and employments,
and the fame enjoyments and pleafurcs, which they had here.
Hence it was that among fome nations it was cuftomary for the
women, the Haves, the fubjedls or friends of the deceafed, to kill
themfelves, that in the other world they might ferve thofe whom
they loved and rcfpedted in this. Such was the pradice among
the antient Danes, as Bartholinus informs us, in his Danifh An-
tiquities. Thus alfo it ftill is in Japan, Macaflar, and other
places. It is faid to be a cuftom in Guinea, that when a king'
dies
440 The grcfs Notiom of Part III.
dies many are ilain, and their bloody carcafes buried w itii him,
that they may again live with him in the other world. (/'). It
was formerly a well known cuftom in the Eaft Indies for women
to kill themfelves after the death of their hulbands, that they
might accompany them in the next life. And fo lately as in the
year 1710, when the prince of Morava on the coaft of Coro-
mandel died, aged above eighty years, his wives, to the number
of forty-feven, were buried with his corpfe (-(•). We are told alfo,
that in Terra Firma in America, when any of their cafiques dies,
liis chief fervants, men and women, kill themfelves to fcrve them
in the other world, and they bury with them maiz and other pro-
vifions for their fubfiftence (/). And it is faid concerning the
jdifciples of Foe in China, that fome of them, when they meet
with obftacles to their paflions, go together to hang or drown
themfelves, that when they rife together again, they may become
hufoand and wife (w).
Monf. de Montefqicu, who mentions fome of thefe things, is
of opinion, that this flows not fo much from a belief of the im-
mortality of the foul, as of the refurredion of the body : from
whence they drew this confequence, that upon their deatli men
{Ji) Englifh acquiJltioas ia Guinea, p. 22.
{k) There is a particular account of this in a letter from 1 i'. rlc
Villettc, who were both of tliem miflionaries in that country. C..>i^^n-.iag which,
fee Millar's Hifiory of the Propagation of Chriftianity, Vol.11, p. 15^, 155.
(/) Perrier's Colleftion of Voyages, p. 194.
{m) See a traft of a Cliinefe philofophcr in Du HalJe's Hlftory of Civlnn, Vol. III.
f. ?7?. Englilli tranfiation.
would
Chap. VIII. a future State among many Nations. 44,1
would have the fame fentlments, neceflities, and paflions as now.
I do not deny but this miglit have been occafioned by an abufe or
mUunderitanding of the dodirine of the refurredtion of the body.
But it does not neceflarily follow, that they believed the fame
body tliat died would rife again, though probably they thought
the foul would have bodies of the like kind, or corporeal vehicles,
which would have the fame wants, neceffities, and enjoyments, as
they have at prefent. But the remark which that celebrated au-
thor makes upon the whole is very judicious. " That it is not
" fufficient that religion fliould eftablifh the dodrine of a future
" ftate, but it (hould alfo diredl to a proper ufe of it : and that
" this is admirably done by theChriftian religion. The dodtrine
" of a future ftate is there reprefented as the objedl of faith, and
" not of fenfe or knowledge : and even the refurredion of the
" body, as there taught, leads to fpiritual ideas [n)" How ad-
mirably our Saviour and his apoftles, who writ under the diredion
of his Spirit, have provided againft the abufe of the dodrine of the
refurredlion, and what noble ideas they have given of it, will be
evident to any one that impartially confiders what is faid of it by
our blefled Lord, Luke xx. ^^, 36. and by St. Paul, i Cor. xv.
from the 42d verfe to the end; and i Thefl". iv. 13 — 18.
(n) L'Efprit de Loix, Vol.11, livrexxiv. chap. 19. p. i6t. edit. Edinb.
Vol. n. Lll C H A P.
441 Our Saviour Jefus Chrljl bath brought Part IIL
CHAP. IX.
Oiir Lord yefm Chr'ijl brought life and immortality into the mofl
clear and opin light by the Go/pel. He both gave the Jiillefi af-
furance of that everlajling kappinefi which is prepared for good
men in a future fate, and made the mojl iifoiting difcoveries of
the nature and greatnefs of that happinefs. The Gofpel alfo con-
tains exprefs declarations concerning the Punifiment 'whichfhall
be in f idled upon the wicked in a future Jl ate. The neccfity and
importance of this part of the Gofpel Revelation fewn. The
co}2clufon, with fame general refections upon the whole.
FROM the account which hath been given of the ftatc of
the Heathen world, with refpetfl to the belief of a flate of
future rewards and punifhments, it appears, that fome notion of
this obtained among the nations from the remotefl antiquity :
that the mofl eminent Pagan writers rcprcfent it as a tradition,
which obtained long before the ages of learning and philofophy,
and which was regarded, as of divine original : that in procefs of
time this tradition became greatly corrupted, and was mixed witli
fables and fidions by the poets and mythologifts, and by the le-
giflators and civil magiftrates too, with a view to adapt it to the
grofs imaginations of the people, and to fcrve political purpofes,
and the interefts of fociety and government : that afterwards,
when the philofophers arofe, who pretended to an extraordinary
penetration above the vulgar, and to examine every thing by the
rules
Chap. IX. Life and hnmortalily To Light. 44J
rules of ftrldl reafoning, they in this as well as other inftanccjs
corrupted the anticnt traditions, and for the moft part rejeded
the immortality of the foul, and a future ftatc of rewards and
punilhnients : that thofc of them who profelled to believe it, the
chief of whom were the Pythagoreans and Platonifts, generally
placed it on wrong foundations, and argued for it from principles
which were either falfe or not to be depended upon : that thofe
who fometimes exprefled themielves ftrongly in flavour of the
foul and a future ftate, at other times faid things which feem to
be inconfiftent with that belief: or, if they really believed it, they
did not pretend to a certainty, and frequently Ipoke of it in a way
which Ihewed they had not attained to a fatisfying convi(Slion
concerning it : that their dodlrine of future rewards was fo ma^
naged as to yield little comfort and encouragement to the gene-
rality of good and virtuous perfons ; and if they fometimes faid
high things of that future happinefs, it related chiefly to fome
eminent and privileged fouls, fuch as legiflators, heroes, and phi-
lofophers, and thofe who diftinguiflied themfclves by public fer-
vices, and by their bravery in war : that as to future punifhments,
though they were fenfible that it was ufeful to fociety to have
them believed, yet they generally rejedled them, and advanced
fuch notions of the Divine Goodnefs, as left little room for punifli-
ments in a future flate ; and they frequently treated all fears of any
evil after death as the effed-s of a vain and fooliOi fuperftition.
This account of the fentiments of the antient philofophers,
efpecially thofe of Greece and Rome, with regard to a future
ftate, is far from coming up to the high idea many have conceived
Lll a of
444. Our Saviour Jefus Chriji hath brought Part III.
of them ; but that it is not a wrong charge, has, I think, been
fufficiently fhewn in the foregoing part of this treatife. And
though fome remains of the antient traditions concerning a future
flate of retributions were ftill to be found among the people, yet
they were in a great meafure worn away, and had lod their force
and influence, even among the vulgar Pagans, about the time
when the Gofpel was publiHied to the world.
As to the Jews, we have the teftimony of our bleffcd Lord
himfelf, and of the facred writer of the epiftle to the Hebrews,
that the doftrine of a future ftate was an article of the religion of
the antient patriarchs, the anceftors of their nation (o). And
though there is no exprefs mention of a future happinefs among
the promifes of the law of Mofes, taken in the literal fenfe, yet
that the belief of a future ftate obtained among that people, ap-
pears to me for feveral reafons highly probable ; but their notions
of it feem to have been mixed with much obfcurity. There was
a confiderable fedl among them at the time of our Saviour's coming,
viz. the Sadducees, who profcfled a ftridl adherence to the law of
Mofes, and yet denied a future Hate. And though the body "of
the Jewifh nation believed, they entertained very imperfedl and
grofs notions of that future felicity, and particularly of the refur-
reiflion of the body.
In thefe circumftances it pleafcd God in his great wifdom and
goodncfs to grant a new Revelation of his will to mankind, in
{',) Mat. xxii. 29. 31, 32. Jkb. xi. 9, 10. 13. 15, 16.
which
Chap. DC. Life and Immortality to Light. ^^£-
which as he made the cleareft difcoveries of his own gloriou^
perfections and governing providence, to lead men to the right
knowledge and adoration of him the only true God, and gave them
the moft holy and excellent precepts to guide them in the practice
of univerfal rightcoufnefs and virtue ; fo the more effcdually to
animate them to their duty, he hath given them the mod: exprefs
and certain affurances of eternal life, as the reward of their fincere
and perfevering, though not abfolutely perfedl, obedience. We
are not left merely to colledl it by dedudtions and inferences,
which, however juft, are apt to leave the mind in doubt and un-
certainty, but it is clearly and diredlly revealed in the moft plain
and explicit terms poffible, and which admit of no ambiguity or
evafion. I need not infift upon the proof of this to any that have
the leaft acquaintance with the New Teftament. It is well known
that thefe facred writings every where abound with the moft ftrong
and pofitive declarations concerning a future everlafting glory and
bleffednefs prepared for the good and righteous. And accordingly
one chief defign of the Gofpel Revelation is to teach men to rife
in their thoughts, afFedlions, and views, above this vain and tran-
fitory world, to that future heavenly ftate, to fit and prepare them
for it, and to engage them to aft as the heirs and expcdants of a
bleffed immortality. This is the proper charafteriftic and diftin-
guithing glory of the religion of Jcfus. We have now as mucli
certainty of that eternal life, as we can rcafonably expedl, till we
ourfelves are fo happy as to be admitted to the adual pofiI:{lion
and enjoyment of it. For we are afTured of it by the exprefs
word and promife of God himfelf, brought to us by the moft
credible and illuftrious meflenger that could be fent from heaven
to
4f6 The Go/pel makes the cJcareJl Difcoverics oj Part IFF,
to mankind, " even the Only-begotten of die Father, full of
'* grace and truth," who came " from his bofom to declare him
" tu us," and who is juftly called the " Amen, the faithful and
" true Witnefs (/>)." Ail the attcflations which were given to
his divine milTion, which were as great as could rcafonably be
cxpedcd or defired (y), may alfo be regarded as divine atteftations
to the truth of the dodrine he taught in his heavenly Father's
name, and cfpecially of that dodrine of eternal life, which was
the main fcope and ultimate defign of the revelations he brought.
His teflimony therefore concerning it is the teflimony of God him-
felf. " I have not fpoken of myfelf (faith he) but the Father
'* which hath fent me, he gave me commandment, what I fhould
'* fay, and what I fliould fpeak. And I know that his command-
*' ment is life everlafting (;•)."
But that which gave the moft glorious atteftatlon both to his
divine miflion in general, and particularly to the truth of the doc-
trine he taught concerning the refurredion of the dead and eternal
life, was his own rifing again from the dead, as he himfelf had
promifed and foretold. " He rtiewed himfelf alive after his paf-
" fion," to his apoftles and other unexceptionable witnefles, by
(/) John i. 14. 18. Rev. ill. 14. And what adds a peculiar force to his tefti-
mony is, that he is not only the publither, but is conAituted by the Divine Wifdom
and Grace, the Author andCiver of that eternal life to them that obey him ; as having
done and fuffcred all that was required of him, in order to our redemption and fal-
vation. See Heb. v. 9. ix. John vi. x. xvii.
(y) See concerning this the firft volume of this work, in the laft chapta.
(r) John xii. 49.
" many
Chap. IX. the Nature and Greafnefs of the future Happinefs. 447-
" many infallible proofs, being feen of them forty days, and
" fpeaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God (/)."
And as a farther proof of his refurredlion and exaltation, he poured
forth upon them, according to his promife, his holy fpirit from
on high, by which they were endued with extraordinary gifts and
powers, and were enabled to preach the Gofpel among the na-
tions, in the name of a crucified and rifen Saviour : '' God bearing
" them witnefs with figns and wonders, and divers miracles and
" gifts of the Holy Ghoft, according to his will (/)." And eternal
life was a principal article of the Gofpel they preached : " This
" is the record (faith St. John) that God hath given to us eternal
" life : and this life is in his Son {u)."
As our Lord Jefus Chrift hath aflured us of the certainty, fo
he hath alfo made far clearer and fuller difcoveries of the nature
and greatnefs of that future happinefs than the world was ever fa-
voured with before.
It is not only reprefented to us as a ftate of reft, in which good
men fhall be abfolutely exempted from all the evils and forrows
to which they are now obnoxious (.v) ; but as including the
full perfedion of our nature, in the enjoyment of all that good
which is neceflary to our complete felicity. The " fpirits of.
(;) Alfts i. 3.
(0 Heb. ii. 4.
(«) I John V. 1 1 .
(x) Heb. iv. 9. Rev. xxi. 4.
*' juft:
44 8 57'^ <jo^l mahs the clear efl Dlfcoveries of Part IIT.
" jufl men (hall then be made perfeft (;')." They fliall be en-
•lightened with divine knowledge. We now " know in part (faith
St. Paul) " but when that which is perfedt is come, then that
" wliich is in part fliall be done away [z)." And l>e there repre-
fcnts our prefent higheft attainments in knowledge, as no better
in compavilbn than the crude imperfedl ideas of a child, compared
with the knowledge of a man arrived to a full maturity of reafon.
But what is efpecially to be confidered is, that the foals of the
righteous fliall then be made perfect in holinefs, goodnefs, and
purity, which is the higheft glory and excellence of the reafonable
nature: and not only fhall their fouls be raifcd to a high degree of
perfedtion in that future ftate, but their bodies too. Man is in his
original conftitution an embodied fpirit. Though the rational foul
is the nobleft part of our nature, yet it is not the whole of it. Nor
could tlie wliole man be properly faid to be made perfedl in blifs,
if the body, which was from the beginning a conftituent part of
his frame, in which he lived and afted during his abode on earth,
were left utterly to perifli in the grave. Eternal life, therefore,
as it fignifies the happinefs of our entire nature, takes in not merely
the immortality of the foul, when feparated from the body, but
the refurredion of the body too, and the immortal exiftence of the
whole man, body and foul united, in a ftate of felicity and per-
fe*5tion. And of this our Lord Jefus Chrifl hath given us the
fullefl and mofl fatisfying alTurance.
{y) Heb. xii. 23.
(2) I Cor. xiii. 9, 10, 11.
Tlxe
Chap. IX. the Nature ana Greairiefs cf the future Ual^ptKefs. " 449.
The Jews, as was before obferved, at the time of our Saviour's
coming, generally profefled to believe the refurre'dtion of the body :
but their notions of it feem for the mofl part to have been very
rude and grofs. Our Lord therefore takes occafion to raife them
to more jufl: and fiiblime conceptions of it. He declares, in an-
fwer to the obiedlions of the Sadducees, That " the children of
*' tliis world marry, and are given in marriage, but they that
" fliall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the refur-
" redlion of the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage :
" neither fliall they die any more; for they are equal unto the
" angels, and are the children of God, being the children of the
** refurredlion («)," Arid elfewhere, to fignify the vi'onderful
fplendor with which their glorified bodies fliall be arrayed, he
faith, " The righteous fliall fliine forth as the fun in the kingdom
" of the Father (b)." In like manner St. Paul, fpeaking of the
diftcrence between our bodies in this prefent ftate, and what they
fliall be at the refurreclion of the dead, faith, That the body
which was " fown in corruption, fliall be raifcd in incorruption ;
" it was-. fown in diihonour,. it ihall be raifed in glory; it was
" fc n in weaknefs, it fliill be raifed in power j it was fown a na-
" tui- •: (or animal), body, it fliall be raifed a fpiritual body (c)."
And . :ain, " This cprruptible muil put on incorruption, and this
" mot' dmufl put on immortality : fo when this corruptible fliall
*' have ^' ut on incorruption, and this, .mortal fliall have put on
(,i) Luke::-?. 34, 35, 36.
{b) Matt. xi,i. 43.
(<:) I Cor. XV. 42, J j, .)-|.
Vol. II. Mmm " immortalitr.
4iO The Gofpel makes the ckareji Difcoveries of Part HI.
*' immortality, then fhall be brought to pafs this faying that is
•' written, death is fwallowed up in vidtory [d)." The lame
apoftle afcerwards aflures us. That " Chrifl: fhall change our vile
" body, that it may be fafliioned like unto his glorious body,
" according to the working whereby he is able even to fubdue
" all things unto himfelf (^)."
To heighten our iJeas of the felicity prepared for good men in
the heavenly ftate, the place of their refidence is reprefented as
very beautiful and glorious. It is defcribed by metaphors drawn
from thofe things which are accounted mofb fplendid and magni-
ficent here on earth : but to fliew that it is to be underftood in a
higher fenfe, far tranfcending the glory of this world, it is declared,
that that heavenly city " hath no need of the fun, neither of the
" moon to fliine in it. For the glory of God doth enlighten it,
" and the Lamb," by which we are to underftand our glorified
Redeemer, " is the light thereof (/)."
It is further fignified, that as they {hall be placed in delightful
manlions, fo they Ihall be engaged in the happleft exercifes and
enjoyments, fuch as fliall be every way fuited to their perfedled
natures. They fliall be admitted to the blifsful and improving
fociety of holy and glorious " angels, and the fpirits of juft men
" made perfeft," and fliall make a part of the " general affembly
{d) I Cor. XV. S3, 54.
{e) Phil. iii. 2i.
(/) Rev. xxi. 2 2, 23,
" and
Chap. rX. the Nature and Greatnefi of the future Happinep. 451
" and church of the firft-born, which are written in heaven {g)"
all united in holy love and concord, continually giving and receiving
mutual unfpeakable fatisfadlion and joy.
But the Gofpel raifeth our ideas of the heavenly felicity higher
flill, by affuring us that we fliall then be admitted to the beatific
vifion and fruition of God himfelf. " BielTed are the pure in
" heart (faith our Saviour) for they fliall fee God (/j)." Though
we cannot pretend diftindly and fully to explain what is to be
underflood by this expreflion of feeing God, yet this we may be
fure of, that it figniiies that we fliall then be admitted to a far
clearer and more immediate knowledge and intuition of the di-
vine glory and perfections, than wc are capable of attaining to
here on earth. " Now we fee through a glafs darkly (as St.
Paul fpeaks) '• but then face to face : now I know in part, but
" then fhall I know even as alfo I am known (/)." It is fuch a
vifion as fliall fill us with the higheft fatisfadlion and delight, and
fhall have a transforming influence upon us. " We fhall be like
" him, for we fhall fee him as he is." We fliall " behold his
" face in righteoufnefs," fo as to be " fatisfied with his like-
" nef. {k)r
It is alfo mentioned as a delightful ingredient in the heavenly
felicity, that there we fliall be with Chrifl the great Saviour and
{g) Heb. xli. 22, 23, 24.
(h) Matt. V. 8.
(/) I Cor. xiii. 12.
(*) I John iii. 2. Pfal. xvl. 11. xvli. 15,
Mmm a Lover
452 T'y&e Go/pel makes the dearcjl Difccveries of Pjirt IIL
Lover of our natures, who hath redeemed us unto God by his
blood, out of every tribe, and tongue, and family, and nation, the
Captain of our Salvation," appointed by the Divine \Vifdom and
Goodnefs to bring many fons unto glory. We fhall rejoice \n him
and the wonders of his love, and fhall with unfpeakable fatisfadion
behold his glory, and be fliarers in it (/).
And now, upon the whole, what a noble li^ea does the Gofpel
give us of the happinefs prepared for good men in the heavenly
ftate! it appears from the account \^hich is there given of it to
be a ft ate of wonderful fplendor and glory, of confummate blifs
and joy, and of perfedt purity and hollnefs. And it deferves par-
ticular notice, that though the manfions of the blelTed in heaven
are fometimes dcfcrlbed by images and reprefent^tions drawn from
fenfible and worldly objeds, yet there is nothing which intrenches
in the Icaft on the rules of the ftrideft purity. None of the im-
pure delights of a Mahometan paradife, and which were artfully
contrived to pleafe thofe who place their liappinefs in fenfual gra-
tifications, enter into the defcription of the Gofpel felicity. It is
a happinefs prepared for the " pnre in heart." It is " the inhe-
" ritance of the faints in light," or " of them that are fandi-
" fied (v^." Wc are told, that it is " upto them that by a pa-
" tient continuance ia well-doing feek for glory, honour, an^
" immortality," that God will give " eternal life («)." And that
(/) Joha xlv. 3. xvii. 24. Rev. iil. 21.
(w) Matt. V. 8. Col. i. 12. AiTls xxvi. iS.
(?.') Rom. ii. 7.
" without
.Chap. IX. the j^ature and Greatnejs of th^ future Happhief. 453
without hclincfs no man fliall fee the Lord (0)." And that
into that heavenly Jtrufalem " there (hall in no-wife enter any
" thing that defileth, neither whatfocver worketh abomination,
** or maketh a lie (/>)." All the excrcifes, all the enjoyments,
are pure and holy, and the bkffei above are continually employed
in praifing and ferving God, and i.i .oing his will.
The laft thing to be obferved concerning that future happinefs
is, that it fliall be uncb:.agcable, and of evcrlafting duration.
Hence it is fo often defcrib^d to us under the notion of eternal
life. They that are admitted to that heavenly felicity, fliall not
be put upon any new hazards or ftates of trial. They fliall be
raifed for ever above all Lar of change, or of lofing their happi-
nefs, and fliall be k.pt ilirough the mighty power and goodnefs
of God, who fliall maiiuain and preferve them in their holy and
happy fl:ate to all eternity.
This happinefs flnll commence with regard to the fouls of
the righteous, in a lower degree, immediately upon their de-
parture out of the body. This fcems to be plainly intimated by
our Saviour, when he faith concerning Lazarus, that " he died,
•' and was carried by angels into Abraham's bofom," a flate of
reft: and joy {q). So he promifed the penitent thief, that he fliould
" that day," i. e. the day of his death, " be with him in para-
(9) Heb. xii. 14.
{p) Rev. vii. 15. xxii. 3. compared with Pfal. ciii. 20, 21. Matt. vi. to,
(.7) Luke xvi. 22.
454 1^^^ Go/pel mahei the clear cjl Difcovcna of Part IIT.
"** dife (>•)." And dying Stephen prayed to the Lord Jcfus " to
" receive his fpirit," i. c. to be with him in blifs and glory {$).
■St. Paul faith concerning himfelf, " I defire to depart, and to be
" with Chrifl: :" intimating the defire and hope he had that he
Diould be with Chrift, when he departed out of this prcfent
life (/), And to the fame purpofe, after having faid, that whilfl:
" we are at home in the body, we are abfent from the Lord," he
declares in his own name, and that of all true Chriftians, " we
" are confident and willing rather to be abfent from the body and
" prefent with the Lord («)•" Where it is intimated, that when
the fouls of good men are abfent from the body, and confequently
while they are in the feparate ftate before their being reunited to
their bodies at the refurrcftion, they are " prefent with the Lord,"
prefent in fuch a manner, that the neareft communion with him
they are admitted to here on earth, may be regarded as compara-
tively a flate of abfence from the Lord. Yet notwithftanding
this, it is not till the general refurredlion, that the happinefs of the
righteous fliall be completed. It is at the time of Chrifl: 's glorious
appearing, tliat the dead fhall be raifed, and their entire natures
confummated in blifs. And there is fomething inexpreflibly noble
and fublime in the account which is given us of the glory of that
day, when the faints fliall be put in full poflclTion of their heavenly
inheritance, and fo fliall continue to all eternity.
(r) Luke xxiii. 46.
(j) Aifts vii. 49.
(/) Phil. i. 23.
Ut) 2 Cor. V. 6, 7, 8,
Any
Chsp. IX. tl:e Nature and Grcainefs cf the future Happinefs. 4 f f
Any one that impartially confuleis this account of future hap-
pinds brought to us by the Revelation of Jekis Chrirt, will fee
the greateft reafon to adore the Divine Goodnefs, which hath fa-
voured us with fuch glorious difcoveries. There is nothing in
this account, when once it is revealed, but what is worthy of
God, and what right reafon duly cxercifed will approve, yet it is-
what it could not have difcovered with any certainty by its own
unaflifted force. Men of fine imaginations might form pleafmg
conjedares concerning the happinefs of a future ftate, in feme
inftances nearly relembling the accounts given in the Gofpel ; but
they could at beft have pafled for no more than agreeable vifions
of fancy, which could not yield any folid affurance or convidlion
to the mind. And indeed, how could any man pretend, by the
force of his own reafon, without the affiftance of Divine Revela-
tion, to explore the fecrets of the invifible world, or take upon
him to determine with certainty, in what manner or degree the
Supreme Lord of the univerfe will, in a future ftate, reward the
iincere though imperfedt obedience of his frail creatures here on
earth ? This depends upon the councils of his own infinite wif-
dom, and unobliged grace and goodnefs, which fuch (hort-fightcd
creatures as we are cannot pretend certainly to know, except he
himfelf fliould declare his will and purpofe concerning it.
No doubt the goodnefs of God, of which tliere are many proofs
in the courfe of his providence in this prefent world, might ad-^
minifter grounds of comfort on fuppofition of a future ftate. But
then it is not his goodnefs alone which is to be confidered, but \
his wifdom and governing juftice too. Let us fuppofe him never
4f6 The Gofpel vmkei the clcareft Difcovcries cf Part III.
fo 2;ood, vet if we believe him to be alfo perfedtly wife and juft,
and to liave a facred regard to the authority of his government and
laws, and are at the lame time fenfible that we have in many in-
ftanccs tranfgrefled his holy laws, and aded contrary to the duty
he requireth of us, might .we not have jult reafon to apprehend
the awful efFedls of his righteous difpleafure ? Or, to make the
moft favourable fuppofition, upon what ground could we hope
that he would raifc us to a complete eternal felicity in a future
Aate, as the reward of our impecfedl obedience in this, when we
could not have pretended to lay claim to fuch a reward as flridly
due to lis in a way of merit, even though we had perfeftly obeyed,
and never in any one inftance fallen ihort of our duty ? But if it
iliould pleafe God to make an exprefs declaration of his gracious
purpofc to pardon all our iniquities, upon our turning to him by a
true repentance and humble faith, and to crown our fmcere perfe-
vering obedience, though not abfolutely finlefs, or free from failur'es
and defeds, with the glorious reward of eternal life, this would
lay a juft foundation for a divine hope and joy. And this is our
unfpeakable comfort and privilege under the Gol'pel Revelation.
And what mightily recommends the difcoveries there made to
us of future rewards, is, that they are not confined to a few per-
fons of diftinguiflied eminence. The Gofpel-promifes extend to
all righteous, holv, and virtuous perfons, of whatfoever condition
or degree, of whatfoever tribe or tongue, or family or nation. It
is true, that it is plainly intimated in the New Tcftament, that
there Ihall be different degrees of glory among the blelTcd above,
in a wife an.d fit proportion tg the different degrees of their holinefs
and
Chap. IX. the Nature and Greatnefs of the future Hap[)tnefs. 45-7
and ufefulncfs here on earth (x). But yet the happinefs (liall be
coniplete in all, according to their difl'erent meafures and degrees j
all Ihall be perfedly pleafed and fatisfied, and admitted to thofe
holy beatifying exercifes and enjoyments, which tend to tiie true
felicity of their nature. Our Saviour declares concerning all the
" righteous" in general, that they fliall " go into life eternal {)')-"
We are aflured, that unto them that by a " patient continuance in
" well-doing feek for glory, honour, and immortality," whatever
their outward condition and circumftances may be here on earth,
whether they be high or low, rich or poor, learned or unlearned,
God will give " eternal life. — Glory, honour, and peace to every
" man that worketh good, to the Jew firfl:, and alfo to the
" Gentile (z)-" Thus our Saviour in the parable reprefents La-
zarus, who was a good man, but reduced to the loweft degree
of poverty, as carried at his death by angels into Abraham's bo-
fom {a). And St. James tells us, that " God hath chofen the poor
*' of this world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom, which he
" hath prepared for them that love him [b)." Chrift is faid to be
" the author of eternal falvation unto all them that obey him (<:)."
Not the meaneft of the human race fliall be excluded from that
heavenly felicity, if they go on in the practice of real piety and
{x) Luke xix. 1 6 — 20.
(>•) Matt. XXV. 46.
(z) Rom. ii. 2. 10.
(a) Luke xvi. 22.
(i) Jam. ii. 5.
(f) Heb. V. 9.
Vol. II. Nnn ylrtuc.
458 The Go/pel Difct/ver;^ of eternal Life is Part III.
virtue, and fervc God with fimplicity and godly finceiity, in the
flation and circumftanccs in which his providence hath placed
them.
And now how jiiftly may it be faid, that cur Lord Jefus Chriil:
liath brought life and immortality to light by the Gofpel ! and
what a glorious fccne doth this open to us ! What a fource of
fpiritual and divine joy, amidft all the adverfities and tribulations
of this prefcnt ftate ! For the " fufferings of this prefent time
" are not worthy to be compared with the glory which (liall be
*' revealed in us (</) !" It hath alfo a manifcft tendency to form
us to a true greatnefs of mind, a noble and god-like temper. He
that has a ftedfafl; hope of that future glory and happinefs, will
be able to look down with a fuperior contempt on all thofe rtiort-
lived worldly advantages which are tlie uiual objtds of ambition
and avarice, and by which men arc fo often tempted to aft corN
trary to the rules of truth and juftice, generous honcfty and fidelity.
The impure allurements of fenfual pleafure will have but fmall
influence upon him that has fuch glorious hopes and views. Nor
will the fear of reproaches, perfccutions, pain, and death, be able
to deter him from his duty.
In fum, nothing can have a greater tendency than the Gofpel-
promife of eternal life, where it is heartily believed and duly con-
fidered, to animate us to a perfevering conftancy and progrefs in
the ways of holincfs and virtue, notwithftanding the difficulties
(d) Rom viji ip,
and
Chap. IX. of the niojl beneficial Tendency. ^cc^
and difcouragements we may meet with in this prcfcnt ftate. It
is far from arguing a mean and mercenary temper to have fuch a
reward in view, as the Gofpel reprefcnts that future h.ippinefs to
be. On the contrary, to afpirc after it, is to afpire to the true
perfedlion of our nature, to a ftate of confummate goodnefs and
purity, and to the neareft conformity to God himfelf, the fupreme
original excellence. It may therefore be juftly faid, that the dif-
covery that is made to us in the Gofpel of a bleflcd immortality,
and of the way that leads to it, and the terms upon which it is to
be obtained, is of fuch vaft importance, that all the wealth of this
world is not to be compared with it.
But it is proper farther to obferve, that the dodrlne of a future
ftate includes not only that of future rewards, or the happinefs pre-
pared for good men in the world to come ; but of the punifliments
which fliall be inflided upon the wicked. And indeed the latter
feem no lefs neceffary in the courfc of the divine adminiftrations
than the former. What confufion and diforder would follow, if
vice and witkednefs were fuffered to ravage without controul ?
To what purpofe would it be to make laws, if thofe laws were left
without authority ? And what authority could laws have without
fandions of punifhments againft the tranfgreffors ? To fay, with
fome of the antient philofophers, that vice is itfelf its own pu-
nilhmcnt, and that there needs no other, feem? to be a plaufiblc
way of talking. But thofe muft: know little of the world or of
mankind, who think this alone would be a fufHcient reftraint.
At that rate legiflators and governors would have nothing more tO'
do than to reprefcnt tft the people the turpitude and deformity of
N n n 2 fraud,
4(5o ^he Punijhmenfs of the Wichd in a future State Part III.
fraud, injuftice, violence, debauchery, and intemperance, and
then fuffer them to a6l as they plcafe. But what fliould we think
of the wifdom of any government, that fliould content kfcif with
enafting good laws, without any other fmdions, than the leaving
men to the natural confcquences of their own adlions ? In all
well-policied ftates, where-ever there have been laws, it has been
judged necclTary to enforce the obfervance of them with fandions
of pofitive penalties againft the violators of thofe laws (c). But
after all, civil penalties can reach no farther than to the outward
adtions and behaviour : they can at befl: only rcfbain open ads of
wickednefs. But if bad men have nothing farther to fear than
the penalties of human laws, thefe can have no influence to pre-
vent their giving way to finful thoughts, affeftions, and difpofi-
tions, which do not properly come within the reach of human
judicatories, or to hinder them from committing the greateft
wickednefs in fecret, vvhen they flatter themfelves that they fliall
efcape detedtion, or that by fraud, bribery, intereft, or power,
they {hall avoid the judgments of earthly tribunals. Or, if their
crimes fhould expofe them to death, they may defpife the penalty,
if death be all they have to fear, and they have nothing to appre-
hend after it. But if, befides all this, they fliould really believe,
that there is a fupreme governor and judge, of infinite power,
wifdom, and juftice, who knoweth all their adlions, and even
their mofi: fecret intentions and thoughts, and will cull them to a
((•) TheChinefe phUofophers talk much of the naniral rewards and punKhmcnts
of virtue and vice. But they are far from trailing to this, as fiiffitient to deter evil-
doers, and to preferve good order in the fhue. No- where are the punilhiiicnts in-
flifttd oa thofe that viol\tc the laws more fevere and j igorous.
Aria:
Chap. IX. fhinlj declared hi the Go/pel. 46 1
flri(fl account ; and that the penahies of human laws and govern-
ments are far from being the word they liave to fear, but that
much greater punifliments are prepared for them in a future ftate,
this, if really believed, muft needs have a mighty influence to
ftem the violence of their vicious appetites and paffions, and to
awaken them to ferious thoughts, which might put them in the
way of better impreffious. Human laws and penalties will be
found too weak to reftrain men, where there is no fear of God
before their eyes, nor regard to a future ftate, and the powers of
the world to come.
It has been already fhewn, that the wifefl: men among the Pa-
gans were fenfible, that it was neceffary for the advantage of fo-
ciety, that the people fliould believe the punifliments of a future
ftate (/). And yet certain it is, thiat at the time of our Saviour's
coming the fear of thofe punifliments was in a great meafure loft
among men. This was very much owing to the libertine prin-
ciples of the great men, and even of the philofophers, which
(/) The ingenious ^t•. Hume, whom no man will fufpeft of being governed hy
religious prejudices, fpeaking cf the nations, " That the Deity will inflifl punldi-
" mcnts on vice, and confer infinite rewards on virtue," fays, That " thofe who
" attempt to difabufe them of fuch prejudices, may, for aught he knows, be
" good reafoners, but that he cannot allow them to be good citizens and politi-
" clans, fince they free men from one renraint upon their paffions, and make the
" infriograent of the laws of equity and fociety in one refpc<fl more eafy and fecure."
Hume's Philofophical EfHiys, p. 231. And Lord Bolingbroke obfcrves. That
" the dcxftrinc of rewards and punilhments in a future ftate has fo great a tendency
" to enforce the civil laws, and to reflrain the vices of men, that reafon, which
(as he pretends) " cannot decide tor it on principles f nati'ral tlieoltviy, I i not
" decide agairift it on principles of good policy." See bis Works, Vol. V. p. 322.
edit. 4to.
fprcad
462 \the Piaiijlments of the JFicked in a future State Part III.
fpread among the people. And this may well be regarded as one
principal caufe of that amazing licentioufnefs, which then prevailed
among the Greeks and Romans, the mofl knowing and civilized
of the Heathen nations.
To awaken men therefore to a fenfc of the divine judgments,
and to reflore the fear of God, which was almoft banilhed out of
the world, was a matter of great importance. And accordingly,
when it pleafed God to fend his own Son to make a new and folemn
publication of his laws to mankind, and alfo to make a clear dil-
covery of eternal life, as the glorious reward of their fincere and
dutiful obedience, nothing could be more proper and neceffary,
than that he fliould at the fame time denounce the mofl awful
punifliments againft thofe that fliould perfift in a prefumptuous
courfe of vice and wickednefs. The Gofpel therefore not only
exhibited the mofl glorious difcovcries of the divine grace and
mercy that were ever made to mankind, but the wrath of God is
there revealed from heaven againft all ungodlinefs and unrighteouf-
nefs of men. And this is no lefs neceflary in a Revelation defigned
for common ufe than the former.
Whofoever impartially confiders the difcourfes of our Lord Jefns
Chrift, as recorded by the Evangelifl:s, will find that this mofl
amiable and benevolent Saviour, who came to call finners to
repentance, and difplay all the charms of the divine love and
goodnefs to invite them to forfake their evil ways, and to come
to him for happinefs, doth alfo reprefent in the mofl flriking
manner the jufl vengeance which fliall be inflided on obflinate
-r impenitent
Chap. IX. plainly diclarcJ in the Giffd. 4*^3
impenitent offenders. Aiul in this he was faithfiiHv follo\ved b}'
the npoflles, who were animated hy his divine fpirit, and publiflud
his Gofpel to the world. Nothing can pofiibly exceed the ac-
count that is given of the awful fulcmnity of the future judgment,
" when the fccrcts of all hearts (hall be revealed, and every man
" Hiall receive according to the things done in the body, whe-
" ther good or evil." The punifhmcnts to be inflidted on
tlie wicked in a future flate are defcribed in the moft ftrong and
ardent exprefllons, and in a manner fitted to ftrike tlic minds of
the mod hardened finncrs with terror and amazement, to awaken
them, if pollible, to a fcnfc of their guilt and danger. TJie dc-
fc:"!Ptions are general, and it is wifely ordered, that they n}ould
be fo : but the dcfign is not to infinuate that all bad men fhall
be punilhed with an equal degree of feverity. There are feveral
paflages from which it appears, that there fliall be a great dif-
ference made between fome and others : that fome, as our Sa-
viour fpeaks, " fhall be beaten with many flripes," others
comparatively " with few :" that even amongfi: heinous offenders
it fliall be more tolerable for fome than for others in the day of
judgment, according to the different aggravations of their crimes.
We arc no where informed what fliall be the leafl degree of
puniflimenf which fliall be infiided. Such a difcovery is no way
neceffary, and would probably be abufed. But this wc arc furc
of, that no man lliall be puniflicd above the real demerit of
his crimes. Infinite Grace and Goodnefs may confer a glory and
felicity upon good men above what they could have pretended to
claim as ftri(5lly due to them. But a jufl: and wife and good God
will never inflid a punifliment upon finners greater tlian their fins
really
41^4 The Piimjfmcnts of the VTickci ill a future State Part III.
really deferve. And of this certainly he muil be acknou '.edged
to be the propereft judge. Our wii'efl way is not to endeavour
to diininifli the evil of fi!i to ourfelvcs, or to make exceptions
againO: the puniHiments as too rigorous and fevere, but to guard
againfl: thofe evil courfes which would expofe us to the threatened
penalties. What St. Paul faith of human laws and governors,
holds proportionably true of the divine : " Rulers are not a terror
" to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou not be afraid of
" the power ? Do that which is good, and thou flialt have
" praife of the fame [g)." The divine threatenings as well as
promifes, proceed from the Supreme Wifdom and Goodnefs,
as well as Righteoufnefs and Juftice. The original intention of
promulgating thefe threatenings, is not that they may be exe-
cuted, but that the execution of them may be prevented : it is to
hinder us from deftroying ourfelves, arid perfifting in thofe finful
courfes which will end in mifery and ruin. The defign of all is
to promote the univerfal good, and to maintain the peace, order,
and harmony of the moral world. Turn thou from thofe evil
praftices, which, if there were no threatenings againfl them, thou
oughteft to avoid from a regard to the will of God, and to the true
perfedlion, dignity, and happinefs of thy own nature, and thou
needeft not to fear thofe threatenings, but hail: glory and immor-
tality before thee. But if, notwithftanding all the warnings that
are given us, we will flill go on in the way which leadeth tode-
AruiSlion, and for a little prefent worldly gain, or the gratifications
of a vicious appetite, forfeit eternal glory, and run the hazard of
(j7) Rom. xiii. 3.
the
Chap. IX. plainly declared in the Go/pel. 4.65
the greateft mifery In a future ftatc, what can it be charged upon
but our own inex'cufablc guilt and folly ?
Thofe, therefore, who make the dodrinC of future punifliments
an objection againlt Chriftianity, a(fl a very unreafonable part. If
the Gofpel fpoke only fmooth things, peace to the wicked, the
vicious, and the profligate, it might indeed pleafe the corrupt
part of mankind, who are defirous to give a full indulgence to
their exorbitant lufts and appetites, but it would be of the word
confequence to the caufe of virtue, piet)"^, and righteoufncfs, and
would furnifli an unanfwerable objedion againft the truth and
divinity of the Chriftian Revelation. If it be fo hard, with all
the threatenings and reftraints that can be laid upon men, to keep
them within any tolerable bounds, what would it be if thofe re-
ftraints fhould be removed ? I do not fee upon what foundation
thofe can pretend to be friends to their country and to mankind,
who at the fame time that they endeavour to deprive good men of
thofe hopes of future happinefs, which are the moft powerful
fupports of virtue, and the greateft comfort of their lives, take
pains to fet wicked men loofe from the fears of future punifli-
ment, when we find by experience, that all is little enough to ftem
the torrent of prevaihng corruption.
Vol II. Ooo * THE
4.66
I
THE
CONCLUSION.
Have now gone through what I intended, and fhall conclude
with a few obfervations upon the whole.
I. We may hence fee, that leafon, if left merely to itfelf in.
the prefent flate of mankind, is not a fafe and certain guide in
matters of religion. The proof which hath been given of this
from faft and experience is of the greatefl: weight. We have not
proceeded in this inquiry upon fpeculative notions of what hu-
man reafon might be fuppofed to be capable of attaining to by its
own unaffifted force, but have endeavoured to form the judgment
of what may be expefted from it, frona what it has actually done.
And we have confidered it i^ot m.ercly as it has been found among
the vulgar, but as it has appeared among the greateft mafters of
reafon in the Pagan world. And the conclufion this will lead us to
will, I am afraid, be different from that which a learned gnd in-
genious author has drawn from the rcprefentation he has given
of the ftate of the Heathen world, with refped to the points we
have been confiderlng. " From hence (fays he) it will follow,
*' that the light of reafon is not that uncertain, weak, infufficient,
" inconfiftent thing, that is by fome pretended, nor ought it to
" be treated as fomething carnal and dim (/')." That reafon has
(/;) See Dr. Sykes's Principles and Conneftion of Natural and Revealed Rcli-
fiion, p. 357, 3S8-
done
TR£ CONCLUSION. 46>
done and may do great thing?, when duly exercifcd, and under
a proper guidance, I readily allow; and that it may be of fignal
Ilk for defending and confirming facred ttnth, and detefting fu-
pcrlVition and error, in oppofition to the frauds and impofitions of
defigning men. Reafon is a valuable gift of God, and it highly
concerneth us to endeavour to improve and not to abufe it. Nor
is any thing to be admitted that is contrary to its plain and evident
dilates. But it was never defigned to be our only guide exclu-
five of Divine Revelation. And if wc muil judge from experience,
we fliall not be apt to form a very advantageous idea of the
powers of human reafon, when truAing to its own perfpicacity in
things fpiritual and divine without a higher afli fiance (/'). It was
therefore a great inftance of the wifdom and goodnefs of God to-
wards mankind, that he favoured them with the lii^ht of Divine
Revelation from the beginning of the world, which, if carefully
(i) It Is a juft obfcrvation of Lord Bacon, that " the only caufc and root of
*' almofl all errors in the kienccs is this, that whilft wc falfly admire the foicc
" and abilities of the human minJ, wc do not fcek out the true and proper aifift-
•* ances for it." — " Caufa et radix fere omnium malorum in fcientiis, ea una clt,
•' quod dum mentis humauz vires falso miramar, vera ejus auxilia non qiuTra-
" mus *." What that great man ftcms here to have haJ particularly in view, ij,
that phi'ofDphers in all ages, from a too high opinion of the force and extent
of their own genius, have been apt to depend upon fchemes and hypothcfes of
their own framing, without a due attention to experiments, and thofc helps which
might have led them to a better knowledge of the nature of things. In like
Biaaner, it has often happened that through an overweening conceit of the ftrength
of their own powers, men have neglefled and defpifed the helps afibrded them by
Divine Revelation ; or they have not kept clofe to its inflruf^ions, but have at-
tempted to be wife above that which is written ; " intruding into things which
" they have not fecn, vainly pufled up by their flcrtily minds," as die apolUc
fpeaks, Col. ii. i8.
* thcoD. Nov. Organ. Scicntur, ajbor. 9.
O o o 2 adhered
4^5 THE CONCLUSION.
adhered to, and duly improred, would have been of the moll
fignal ufe. And afterwards he was gracioufly pleafed to intcrpofe
by renewed difcoveries of his will, for recovering mankind from
their darknefs and corruption to the right knowledge and pradlice
of important truth and duty. And if, notwithftanding thcfe
advantages, men have generally fallen from the knowledge of
God and true religion, and have corrupted it with grofs fuperfti-
tions and idolatries,, this is no argument that Revelation is of no
ufe or fignlficancy. On the contrary, it furnifheth a convincing
proof of the weaknefs of human reafon in the prefent depraved
ftate of mankind ; and we may juftly conclude, that if, even with
tlie helps it has received from Divine Revelation, it is ftill fo prone
to fall into error in matters of great importance, much more would-
it be apt to lead men aftray, if left entirely deftitute of that affift-
This leads me to obferve^,
2dly, That we fliould fet a high value on the Gofpel of Jefus^
which ib the pcrfedion of all the divine revelations that have been
given to mankind, and to which the fcveral prior revelations were
defirncd to be preparatory. It has every thing in it that is nccef-
fary for guiding men in the way of falvation. The idea there given
us of the Deity is the moft worthy and fublime that can be ima-
gined, admirably fitted to fill us with the highefl love to God, and
the moft thankful admiration of his infinite grace and goodnefs,
and at the fame time with the moft awful veneration of his un-
changeable righteoufiiefs, jufticc, and purity. The Gofpel dil-
coveries
THE CONCLUSION 465^
coveries have alfo a manifen: tendency to beget in us an Ingenuous
truft and confidence in hiin, and to encourage us to draw near to
l\im with an humble freedom, through that great Mediator, who
by his wife and fovcrcign appointment hath made expiation for
our fins, and obtained eternal redemption for us.
Again, nothing can be more holy and excellent than the laws
and precepts which are there given us. Our duty is fet before us
in its juft extent. Morality is carried to its nobleft height, without
running into extravagancies or unnatural extremes. The defign
of all its precepts, dodlrines, and ordinances, is to form us by a
life of holinefs and virtue here, for a ftate of perfecft goodncfs and
purity in a better world. The motives which are propofed to ani-
mate us to obedience, are the moft powerful that can be imagined,
drawn from the charms of the divine love and goodnefs, and from
a regard to our own highcfi: intercft and happinefs: we are raifed
to the moft glorious privileges and fublime hopes, and have the
moft pcrfcd and lovely example of the Son of God in our nature
propofed to our imitation. Befides which, the gracious afliftances
of the Holy Spirit are promifed and provided. And finally, eter-
nal life is brought into the moll: clear and open light. The mofl:
ravifliing difcoveries are made of that everlaftlng happinefs and
glory which is prepared for good men in the heavenly ftate. And
that nothing might be wanting to render the Revelation complete
for moral purpofes, as the glad tidings of pardon and falvation are
publilhcd to penitent returning finncrs, who forfake their evil ways,
and' yield themfclvcs unto God in fincerc and dutiful obedience ;.
fo.
47* THE CONCLUSION.
lb on the either hand the awful folemnities of the future judgment
aie there alfo dirplayed in the moft ftriking manner, and dreadful
punifliinents are denounced againft tliofe who rejedl; offered mercy,
nnd obftinately perfill in vice and wickednefs.
This leads to another obfervation proper to be made on this oc-
cafion ; and that is, that Chriftianity duly believed and practifed
tends to the advantage of fociety, to promote the welfare of king-
doms and ftates, and to preferve good order in the world. If men
followed the facred precepts and diredions it gives, what a happy
world this would be ! Impartial juftice, generous honefty, exadl
fidelity, extenfive benevolence, and a peaceful harmony and cori-
cord would generally prevail. The irregular paflions and fenfual
affedlions would be brought under a due fubjedion to rehgion
and reafon j evdry one would be content in his ftation, and di--.
ligent in performing the duties of it. The ftate would be as
one large family, all united in mutual love, rejoicing in one an-
other's welfare, and dcfirous to promote it. Kings, if they were
governed by the precepts of Chriftianity, would ad: as the fathers
of their people : righteoufnefs and judgment, clemency and mercy,
would be the ftability of their throne; rulers fuprcme and fubor-
dinate would be juft, ruling in the fear of God. Subjedls would
be fubniilTive and obedient to the higher powers, and render all
due allegiance and fidelity for confcience fake. The Gofpel, pro-
perly attended to, would check and reftrain the abufe of liberty,
and keep it within proper bounds, that it might not run into li-
centioufnefs. Hufbands and wives, parents and children, maftcrs
and
THE CONCLUSION. 471
and lervants, paftors and their flocks, would fulfil the duties of
their feveral relations ; and a flop would be put to that torrent of
corruption, tlut inundation of vice and fenfuality, which threatens
ruin to flates and kingdoms, and tends to the utter fubverfion of
all order and good polity.
It cannot be denied, that what has been now mentioned is the
natural tendency of the Chriltian precepts, as laid down in the
Holy Scriptures, whcre-evcr this religion is fincerely believed and
embraced. I fliall on this occafion fubjoin the tcftimony of a great
author, wliom I mentioned before, and who muft be acknow-
ledged to be a'Vcry able judge of thefe matters, and was far from
a harrow way of thinking ; it is the celebrated M. de Montefquicu.
As, in a palTage before cited, he extols the morality of the Gofpel,
and declares it to be one of the mofl: excellent gifts of God to man-
kind, fo on dhcrthcr occafionhc takes notice of its good influence
confidercd in a political view. Having obfervcd that Mr. Bavle
takes upon him to affirm, that a ftatc made up of real Chtiflians,
aillhe according to the rules of Chririianlty', couldiwt fubfifl:, he
afty,""'*''Why hot? "the citizens would ha\>e a elear k'nowled<Te
' of their feveral duties, and a great zeal to fulfil them : they
' would have a juft notion of the right of natural defence : and
'■ tlie more they thought they owed to religion, the more fenlibk;
• they would be of what they owed to their country." He adds.
That " the principles of Chriftianity, deeply engraven upon the
' heart, would be of infinitely greater force than the falfe honour
' of monarchies, the humane virtues of republics, and the fcrvile
"fear
47^ T HE CO K C L U SIGN.
" fear of defpotic ftates {k)." ■ The fame author mentions it as
" an adniiiable thin^, that the Chriftian religion, wliich fecms to
" have for its obje(!i only tlie happinefs of another life, does aUu
" ijiakc up our happinefs in this (/)."
It were cafy to enlarge upon this laft obfcrvation, and fliew
vhat a tendency the Chriftian religion has to promote our prefcnt
happinefs, and how vaftly it contributes to the real fatisfaftion of
life. Its admirable precepts, when duly pradlifed, lay a founda-
tion for inward tranquillity, peace, and felf-enjoynient. Even
thofc of its precepts, which feem moil harfli and grievous to the
fenfual appetites and paffions, manifeftly tend to the true per-
fection and felicity of our nature, and to recover the foul from
its ignominious fervitude to vicious luflis, to a noble fpiritual and
iiioral liberty. It doth not impofe upon us any of thofe un-
natural hardlhips and feverities which fuperftition hath often laid
upon its votaries : nor doth it forbid any pleafures, but what are
bafe and vicious in their nature, or exceflive in their degree. It
direfts and afTifts us in the true enjoyment of the bleflings of Pro-
vidence with a moft thankful fenfe of the Divine Goodnefs.
{k) " Ce ferolent des citoyens infiniment eclaircs fur lears devoirs, et qui au-
" roient un tres grand zele pour les remplir : ils fcntiroicnt ties bien les droits de la
" defence naturcllc : plus ils croiroient devoir a la religion, plus ils penferoient de-
" voir a la patrie. Les principes tlu Chriflianifme bien graves dans Ic coeur feroient
" infiniment plus forts, que ce faux honneur dcs monarchies, ces vertus Inimaines
" des rcpubliques, et cette crainte favile des etats defpotiques." De I'Efprit dcs
Loix, tome II. liviexxiv. chap. 6. p. 154. edit. Ediub. Scealfo to the fame pur-
pofe, ibid. chap. 3. p. 152.
(/) " Chofe admirable ! la religion Chretienne, qui ne fembie avoir d'objet que
" k felicitc dc I'autrc vie, fait encoicnotrc bonheur dans celJe-ci." Ibid, p- 151.
And
THE CONCLUSION. 473
And its glorious promifcs and fubllme hopes open tlie way for us
to pleafures of a ftill nobler and fublimer nature, the happy prc-
libations of invifible and immortal joys.
The defign I had in view has led me chiefly to confidcr thofc
principles and duties which are ufually looked upon as compre-
hended in what is called natural religion, and which arc in fome
degree difcoverable by human rcafon. And it has been Ihewn,
tliat in faifl, through the corruption of mankind, thcfe principles
and duties were fo perverted and obfcured as to render an extra-
ordinary Revelation from God highly needful, for fetting them in
the moft convincing light, and enforcing 'them by a divine au-
thority- It appears from what has been obferved, that the Chri-
ftian Revelation has done this to the greated advantage. And if
we fliould proceed farther to a particular confidcration of thofe
more peculiar dodrines of Chriilianity, which rcafon could not
at all have difcovered if they had not been revealed, efpccially
thofe relating to the methods of our redemption through Jefus
Chrift, here a glorious Icene would open to us, fitted to fill our
minds with the higheft admiration of the divine wifdom and
righteoufnefs, and love to mankind. Chriftianity, confidered ia
this view, is a difpenfation of grace and joy, and hath brought
the beft, the happicft tidingb that were ever publiflicd to the world,
liut I have already far exceeded the bounds I originally intended,
and therefore (hall, without farther enlargement, conclude with
obfcrving, that we, who have the benefit of the Gofpel Revelation,
are under indil'penfable obligations to endeavour to nuke a gooil
\'oL. II. Ppp u:b
474 'THE C O N C L U S I 0 N'.
life of our advantages, and to receive with the greateft veneration
a-nd thankfulnefs the glorious difcoveries it brings. We fliould'
be grateful to Divine Providence for the ether advantages we enjoy,-
for our trade and commerce, for the flourilLing of arts and kiences
among us, and for the enjoyment of civil liberty. 13ut the mofl:
valuable of all our privileges is, that we have the Holy Scrijnures
in our hands, and the Ciiriftian Revelation clearly publiflicd
amongft us, which hath inftrutfled us in the right knowledge of
the Deity, hath fet our duty before us in its juft extent, and fur-
niflied the noblefl motives and afiiflanccs for the performance of
it, and hath raifed us to fuch fublime hopes^ of a complete eter-
nal felicity. Surely this calls in a particular manner for our adoring
thankfulnefs to God, to whofc rich grace and mercy we owe it
that v/e are called out of darknefs into his marvellous light.
It is aftonifliing to think, that there ihould be perfons found
among us, who feem defirous to extinguifli this glorious light,
and to return to the antient darknefs of Paganifm again : wiio
feem weary of the Gofpel, and with a prepofterous zeal endea-
vour to fubvert its proofs and evidences, and to cxpofe it, as far
as in them lies, to the dcrifion and contempt of mankind. But
the attempts of fuch men againll our holy religion fliould only.
quicken our zeal and heighten our eftecm for it, and make ua
more earneftly defirous to build up ourfelves in our moil holyi.
faith, and to adorn it by an exemplary converfation becoming
the Gofpel of Chrift. Chriilianity is not a bare fyftem of fpe-
culative opinions, but a pradical inltitution, a fpiritual and hea-
venly difcjplinc, all whole dodrines, precepts, promifcs, and
ordinances.
THE CONCLUSION. 475
ordinances, are defigned to form men to a hcly and virtuous
temper and pradice. The mod etfcdual way, tliercfore, we cart
take to promote its facrcd interefts, is to fliew the happy influence
it hath upon our own hearts and lives, by abounding in the fruits
of piety, righteoufnefs, and charity, and thus making an am'wblc
reprcfentation of it to the world.
Ppp z INDEX
INDEX
T O T H E
SECOND VOLUME.
03* The Uller N. refers to the Notes at the Bottom of the Page.
ANTONINUS, Marcus — the emperor and philofopher, fpeaksof thegods as thr
JlJL authors of all good things, and that to them we ought to offer up our prayers for
affiftance in duty, and our thaokfgivings for the bleflings we enjoy, page 175.
The goodnefs of his nature fometimcs got the better of his Stoical principles, 188.
He reprefents all fin and wictcJiicfs as owing to ignorance and error, 193 — and as
ncccflary and unavoidable, 194. His do(5lrine of forgiving injuries in fcvcral rerpe(fls
excellent, but carried in fome inftances to an extreme, and placed on wrong
foundations, 200. He allowed, and in fome cafes aJvifed, felf-murder, 216, 217.
His arguTients for the abfjlute iniliffjroncy of ;ill extern.il things confulered, 240,
241. He excelled the other philofuphers in the fenfe he had of the ftrift obliga-
tion of truth, and held that he who utters a lie willingly is guilty of impiety, 250.
He every where cxpielTes hi mfelf doubtfully about the immortality of ihe foul, 327.
Sometimes fuppofes it to be refilmed into the univcrf.il foul immediately upon its
quitting the body, 318. He never gives the leaft hint that men (hall be judged
after death tor their conduft in this life, or that the wicked Ihall be puiilfhed in a
future ftatc, 329. 417. He reprefents duration as of no moment to happinefs, 396.
Apathy, Stoical — doftrine of it confiJcred, i8.|, tt fc^.
Arijiippus — held that nothing is by nature juft or unjuft, honourable or bafc, but
only -by law and cuftoai, gj. He and the Cyrcnaics his foHowcis a/Tertcd that
corporeal plcaftire, which actually moves and ftrikcs the fenfti, is the chiefeft
good, and highcft end of man, 97, 98. He ij i:inK.ed by Cicero with Socrates
as a mm of extraordinary and divine cndowmen:i, yet was very Icofc in his rao-
rali, 208. N.
INDEX.
^njlallc — approves anJ prefcribes the expofing and deftroylng weak and llckly chll-
.drcn, 53 — encourages revenge, and fcems to blame mceknefs and forgivencfs of in-
jucics, 140 — teaches that vhtue is the greateft good, but that external advantages
are necefTary to complete happinefs, 238 — ^\-ades in his doiflrine with refpeft to the
immortality of the fcjul; and fometimcs feems abfolutely to d^ny It, 515, 316.
Attic laws — Some of them probably derived from thofe of Mofes, 46.
B.
Bacon, Lord — A remarkable aphorifm of his, that the caufe of almofl all evils in the
fciences is die entertaining too high an opinion of the pQ%wcrs of the human mind
to the negleifi; of proper affiftances, 467. N.
Darbcyrac, Mr. — of opinion that men generally coaie to the knowledge of morals by
cuftom and education, 17, 18.
i?.:)7^, Mr. — fets himfelf to fliew the uncertainty of morals, 93. N. — fays, that the
forgivenefs of injuries is contrary to the law of nature, 142 — pleads for the com-
munity of wives, and for mens lending them to one another, as having nothing ia
it difagreeable to reafon, 151. N.
BoUnt^broke, Lord — alTerts that the whole law of nature, from the firft principle's to- the
Ip.ii conclufions, is naturally and ncceffarily known to every man, 5 — yet acknow-
ledges tliat the law of nature is hid from oor fight by the variegated clondi of civil
laws and cufloms, and can yield but a dubious light to thofe that have the clearell:
fight, till thofe interpofitions are removed, 76, 77— and that they who make the
higheft pretences are unable, on many occafions, to deduce from the laws of ihelr
own nature, with prccifion and certaiuty, what thefe requije of them, and what
is right or wrong, juft or unjuft for them to do, 133. He afTerts, that there is no
moral precept in the whole Gofpel but what was -taught by the philofophers, and
yet reprefcnts it as the law of nature, that God only is to be worfhippcd and
'adored.: which was not taught or prefaibed by any of tlicm, 82, and i;y,
c.
C^/ar, Julius — declared in open fenate that there is nothing to be hoped or feared
after death, 429.
Cufaubon, Dr. Meric—Wh aJTcrtion, that there is no evangelical duty which wife
men among the Heathens have not taught by the mere ftrcngth of natural reafon
confidercd, 83, ct fcq.
Csto cf Uticn— cried up as a perfe^ model of virtue, lent his wife to Hortenfius, 151.
— carried his grief for the death of his brotlicr Ccpio to an excefs, 188, 189
admired for his inflexible feverity, 205— addifted to cxceffive drinking; but Seneca
ivill not allow tlut this was a fault in him, 210. Ho tauglu and praftifed fclt-
jBurder, 212.
Cmulre/i
r N D E X.
ChllJren — ^The cxpofing thofe of them that M'ere weak and dcfonncvf prc{ciilx?cf b'/a
Liw of LycJrgrs, 50 — very common in Greece, and other parts ot the Pagan
world, 5^ — approved by Plato and Ariftotlv, ibiJ. — prjfciibcd by Romulus, ajjd'
continued to be praftifcd at Rome for many age';, f\Ct, 67,
Chintfi — highly extolled by fome authors as having the preference to Chriftlans in all
moral virtues, 70. Their laws well contrived to prci'crve public order, but iniuf-
ficient to farnilh a com pleat rule of moral?, ibid. — unn.-'tnral lulls common among
them, 71 — they account drurikcnnefs to be no crui , ibid. — take as many cone •»-
bines as they can keep, ibid. — lend and pawn their wiv^-."! upon occniion, ibid. — •
uud di/lblve marriages for I'ight caufes, 72. Their cruel cuftom of expofin^ artl
deftroying their female children, ibid.— exceeding litigious and revengeful, 7^.
Their tribunals full of fraud and injuftice, ibiJ. N. Sec alfo 331. The molt
cheating nation upon earth, 74. See Learned Seel in China,
ChrijVtan Rntlathn — was publlfhed nt a time when mankind were funk into the mofl
amazing corruptron with r.gaid to m-^rals, 253, 254 — brought the moft peifeft
fchemc of moraJity that w.is ever ^iveii to the world, and intorced it by the mod
powerful motives. See M'.raVity. The uniform tendency of the whole to promcfc
the prafticeof holinefs and vinnc, is a ftrong argument of its divine original, 288,
et.feq. Life and immorraliv is brought by it into the clcareft .niid fullelf light, 445,
ct fcq. It has given the itrungeft aifurances of the certainty of future happinefs,
446 — and makes t'.c moll im-itingdifcoveries of the nature ot that hnppincf?, 447,
ttfeq. The idcn there given of it is the noMcft that can be conceived, and the
be ft fitted to promote the pra'^ico of nghteoulucfs and true holinefs, 451, 452.
It alfo makes the moft awfol and (Iriking reprefentations of the Judgment to come,
and of the puuiniments wh;,.h (hall be infli^cd upon the wicked in a future (fate.
462. It is the pir'"\'>ion of all the Divine Revelations that \TCre ever given to
mankind, and therctorj to be received with the higheft \-eneration and th.ankfirl-
iK-fj, and to be valued a; the greateft of all our privileges, 468, et feq. When
duly undcrf.ood and praflifed it is of great advantage to l;ingdoms and ftates, and
has a tendency to promote good order in the world, and public as well as privr.tc
happinefs, 470, 471.
Chrijllinity — in many inftances raifed its profellors to a height of fortitude and pa-
tieiicc, whidi the Stoics be ilk 1 of, but could not attain to, 2:13, 244.
Cbri/Iiaiis, pritnilivi — the i.io.l pious .and virtuous body of men that ever appeared in
the world, 290. The purity and innocency of their lives arknowledgjd by the
P.v'^.ii t!i :. lives, 3991, 400. Glorious cfTcifts produced by their hopescf a bltlTeJ"'
i iljid.
Ck(jji, . ..laious Stoic philofophcr — .Xrrogant flrains of his, equalling the wife
, /pan with Jufitcr in virtue c 1 ha,"tpiuers, 170, 171. He reckoned the moft in-*
ciflu jus ml;\;.:.t: r.:id impuiitlce aaicng iudi'Tv.riri'. things, 208 — held the com-
uiimlt'/
I N D EX.
fliwnity' or women, 209 gave obfcene interpretations of the Pngnn mythokigyj
ibid. — was addicted to driinkcnners, and died of it, 210.
Cicer': — bcftows the higheft encomiums on the ufetulnefs and cxcellcticy of philofophy,
efpecially with reg:ird to morals, 81 — yet obferves, that it was by many not only
negle(f>ed but reproached, 90, 91 — palFes a fcvere ccnfure on thole that make fen-
fuil pleafure the chief good, 96. He derives the original of law from the fovereign
wiklom nnd authority which governs the univerfe, 121. This law he fometimes
■ reprercnts as naturally and necelTIirily known to all men without inl1ru<ftion or an
interpreter, 122. The contrary is proved from his own acknowledgments, 123.
He lends men to the contemplation of the works of nature, cfpecially of- the hea-
. vens, for inftruflion in moral duty, 1 24. What he fecms principally to rely upqn
is, tiiat the natural law is made known by the realbn of the wife man, which he
^uppofes to be the fame with the reafon of God himfelf, 126, 127, He makes
little mention of God in his Book of Offices, where he treats of ethics, 134. He
ericonrages retaliation of injuries, 141, 142 — pleads for foniication as having no-
thini; blameable in it, and as univerfaily allowed and praflifed, 153, 154. Some-
times he feems to condemn fuicide, at other times commends and jullifies it, 223,
224 — prefers the Stoical fcheme of morals, in his Book of Offices, to that of the
Peripatetics, 238. His account of the Honellum conlldtred, 246, 247. He ar-
gues excellently for the immortality of the foul in feveral parts of his works, 355—
yet fometimes in his familiar letters to his friends reprefents death as putting an
end to aH lenfe of good or evil, 356, 357. Even where he feems to plead moft
itrenuoully for the immortaliiy of the foul, he does not pretend to a certainty, but
talks doubtfully about it, 382. It is not clear whether he held the foul to be pro-
perly a part of the Divine EfTence ; but he argued, that it muft be necelTariiy eter-
nal by the force of its own nature, 369, 370. He makes no uf'e of the doftiine
of tire immortality of the foul for moral purpofes, eitlicr for fupporting men under
troubles and adverlities, or for engaging them to the purfuit and pra<flicc of virtue,
390, 391. The notion of future punidiments is abfolutely rejefted by him, both
in his philofophical trearifes, and in a public oration before the Roman people,
410, 411. He fo explains the maxim of the philofophcrs that the gods are
never angry, as to exclude all fear of puniiliments after death, 41;, ct feq.
Civil laws, audciijloms that had the force of laws — not adequate rules of moral duty,
41, 42. 7G, 77. Inftances iu which they were contrary to good morals, 44,
et fcq.
Clerc, Mr. /./—thinks it probable that feveral of tl:e ufages and inftitutions, whfch
were common to'the Egyptians and Hebrews, were derived to them from thcearlicft
ages, and originally of divine appointment, 27. N.
Coiniauiiity of ivivcj—MowcA by many of the philofophcre, particularly by Plato,
the Cynics, and Stoics, 147. 150, 151. 209. — praftifed by many nations, 147. N.
Confucius,
I.:: K3 Dc: e'*. kx
'Omfuchti, the famc«n Chinrfe phibfoj^htr — d!3 not pretend to be lilmfelf tlie aatliov
of the moral precepts he dtlivcrcJ, but to liavc daived thefln from wife men of
the gi;ef.t<;4\ antiquity, 29. N. He carried the cuflotn of mourning for dead
fartiits ta an extreme that is prejudicial to fqciety, 189, 190. He makes no
mention of the immortality of the foul, and the rewards «nd puniHimeftts of a
future ftate, 330. This dodrine rejccfb^ by his diftiples. Sec Learned Se£^.
Lc- Conj'crvatiiir — .1 periodital paper publlfhed at Paris, attempts to juftify the lav-:?
of bxM fiatiMib, -ahich ord^rvd old and inlirm ptTlons to be pnt to deatii, 75. N.
i-rpat^nds,' that tuicide is tiot coQttnry toroapMi, though, it is forbiddon by reli-
ciou, 2:5.
C^i|^<»»w,' IwrbttotM andLimpore— oF ferctal naHoiK,^menTtooe<i by Kufeblus, from
which they were rcciairacJ by Chriflianity, 75. ti >
Cynffi — profejfed to raaiie morals their wiiolc ftudy, yet Ihewcd littk regard 10
• >*iodeAy and decency, 14^ — derwed th« immortality of the foul, 315.
Cyrcnaks, Seel of — hold fenfual pleafure to be the chief good of man ; and that the
plcafurcs of the body arc greater thau tfcofc of the mind, and its pains atid griefs
worfe, 98. Dilference between «hem and the Epicureans, 106. io8. Set Art-
ft p^*i^ They denied the iraiBort*llty of the foul, 3 1 5.
D.
D*ifi^r modem-r-foiA foult with the Gofpel dcftrmc of forgiving injuries, and loving
our /enemies, in which they fall fiiort of fbrne antic-nt Heathens, 142. See alfo
271. Tiicjr nrepjenfirally very loofc iji their dcNfliincs conceniiug the grnxilicaiioti
of the fenfual pallions, and aiiojv great liberties to incontinence and impurity,
' S7» J 58. Some of tiiem preter^d, tiiat the immoitRlity of the foul, and a future
ll.vieef retributions, is fo evident, that there needs no revelation to alTurc us of it i
♦Hhers treat it as a popular error, or at beft as abfolutcly uncertain, and as having
no (olid ioundation in roafon to fupportit, 297.
Dicgeius tic CymV-^admired by Epi£tetns as a perfeft pattern of virtue, and ftnt by
. todi to ioftmft and rtform mankind, J49, 150. He held the community of wo-
men, and that marriage is nothing, 15a. His fliameful iiltbincfs and iucoutineuce,
ibid, et I 52.
Diwyfim Hahc.trna.i[t:is — An obfer^arion of Jiis, that if, die foul Iw diflblved at
i death, thofe men cannot be accounted happy uho have pcriibed on account of
l^idr virtue, 596. ■ . . .
afMUrs fur it vie hfiimfe — a traft onder that title — is dcfigned to flicw that b.ip-
pincfs conf/fts oi>K in the f;rAtific«tinn of the Hofhly appetites ; and afll-rts, that wc
ought to take care of the body rather than of the foul, and to cultivate the rainJ
<x>ly to procure advantages for the body, 98. N.— confidently pronounce?!, that it
«3 demonftrattd by a thoofanj argximents that there is po other life but this ; •anj
Vol. IL Q^<| q lliaf
I N < D E X.
that the iporiality of the foul was the general do(n:nnc of all the phiiofophers froia
the beginning, 307. N.
DiJ/ikitions. and Rciicvatms of the world perpetually returning at certain periods-
taught by many, of the antient phiiofophers, particubrly by the Stoics^ 323 — aaJ
l);fjJjicJU?^jjiS}^,Si?i;t,ip China at this day, ibid.
; -'■.,. :. ,■,;■,-, ^•
E/ifiern Sages — famous for their moral maxims derived to them, not m a way of rea-
{bning and philofophy, but by a tradition fiom the moft antient times, 29. N.
et 30.
EilucAtipi nijd biJiriiHkn — the ordinary way of communicating to men the knowledge
of morals, 16, 17, >8.
Egyjftuin laws and cii/ictns — admired by the antients, 43. A remarkable cuftom of
•theirs, with reflecftions upon it, 44. Their laws and cuftoms In feveral inftances of
an immoral tendency, 44, 45.
Slyfium — the reward of it but temporary, 375. 378.
Mfticurus. — held, pleafure to be the chief good, and higliefl happiuefs of man, 99.
His morals highly commended both by fome of the antients and moderns, ibid. It
is an clfential defeft in his fcheme of morals, that it had no regard to the Deity, or
to a divine authority and law ; and yet he writ books about piety and fanftity, 100.
His morality dtfc<f^ive with rcfpert to the duties we owe to mankind, ibid. He
taught that buiintis and cares do not confift with happiuefs ; and that a wife maa
ought not to marry, or to concern himfelf with public .ofTairs, 10 1. He ^ves ex-
cellent precepts of moderation, temperance,' and the go^-crnment of the padions, ibid.
, et loz — reprefents the inconvenience of indulging venereal pkafures ; and de-
claret, flint the pieaiiires he recommends, are not thofc of luxury and cxcsfs, but
■ Hiu-b as are under the condnft of prudence, loi, 102 — yet is faid to have bad
Jfevcral miftrelTes, 104. The virtues he prefer ibcs are refolved v/holly into a man's
,pwn private advantage, without regard to the excellence of virtue, or a divine com-
'."'oiand, lo^-^dtdares, that 1«: could not underftand what good there i.^ but th«
■•iplearure of the fcn(o's, 105 — forbids injnfUcc and other ciimes, not for ahy tvil
• (there is in them iti themfelvcs confidcrcd, but for fear of human punifhments, 106.
He valued hirtiftlf upon inftrufting men in the nature of true happincfs, and diretfl-
fng them how to obtainit, 108. He taught that happinefs conlitls in indolence of
' the body, and tranquillity of mind, ibid. Some of the means he propofod toUiat
end were fit and proper, 109. But what he chiefly infifted npon ;\s neceflary to
make men happy, was the denviering them from the fear of the gods, and the
fear ot death. His remedy againf\ the firlV w.as to deny a Providence that con-
ctrneth itielf with human afTairs, ibid. The confiderations he ofTercd to free mcti
from the fear of death, vain .and iijfuflUc lent, 109, 110. His glorious pretences to
fjititude, and a comtempt of pain, confidered and expofcd, in, iiz. . His pHde
r N D " e"' xJ
and %'ain-glorT even in his dying moments, it '3. His contempt c^ other pTiilofo-
■phers, and envy at thtir reputation, 114. Honours done him by his countrv, 116,
Epicureans — their great veneration for the memory of Kpicurus — they in erfeft mndc
a' god of him, i r j, 1 16 — and looked upon it to be an impious thing, to bring in
any other tenets than thofe which he taught ihcm, i 16. They were very mime^
rous, and continued when other fef\s of philosophers Fatted, 116, 117 — highly
favoured by the gve;U men in Rome, by the emperors and the people, ibid. — yer
-{cvere decrees were made aguinft them by fome cities and ftates, 117,118.
Efi^stus — His obfcrvation concerning the great difficulty of applying general pre-
conceptions to particular cafes, 132, 133. He allows no f.iDftions of rewards and
punifliments, but what flow from the nature of the adions therafclvcs, 165 —
afTcrts, chat man's will and choice is unconquerable by God hirofelf, 169 — carries
the Stoital doflrinc of ajjathy to a degree of extravagance, 185, 186 — reprefents
"all wickednefs a? owing to ignorance and a wrong perfuafion, 191, 192 — will not
ailov that any injury can be done to a good man, 196 — advifes to fuicide in fome
■ cafes, 2 1 ;. No philofopher ever more ftrongly aflerted the abfolute indilferency of
all external things, 230. He complains, that he never met with a true Stoic, 2431*
He never fpeaks of a future ftate of retributions, 327 — rejefts the do<flrine of fu-
ture punifhments, ibid.
LEfprit, De — Tbe author of the book fo called makes the laws of the flute Uic rule
and mcafure of virtue and duty, 41. N. He brings many inflances of impure
cuftoms among the nations, and feems to approve them, 75, 76 — makes the love
of fenfual pleafnre the chief incentive to virtue ; and affirms, that the pcrfciffioh of
Icgiflation conlirts in exciting men to the nobleft afHons by fomenting and gratify-
ing the fenfual p.iflions, 97 — will not allow that gallantry is a fault or vice in a
nation whers luxury is nccclTary, 98. N.
Eternal life '0 <itl ^oodmen — not taught by the moft eminent of the Pagan philofo-
phers, 378, 179- It commences with rcfpeft to the fouk of the righteous im-
oicdLitely after their departure from the body ; but includes the rcfurrc(f>ion of the
body, and Ihall then be completed, 448, 449. 454. We could not be afl^ured
of ctaual happincfs as the reward of our impcrfeiff obedience, but by an exprcfi
Pivinc Revelation, 455, 456. It is promifcd in the Gorptl to all good men with-
oot exception, 456, 457.
Exateric and Ejiteric do<nriiic of the anticnts, 387, ct fcq. The f.ime diftlnflion
obtain* among, the Chinc/e, j88, 389. N.
F.
FaB ef-man-^Vtvi datki required of men in conftqucncc of it, concnningwhichCoJ
difcavcrcd his will in the firft ages, 33.
Fintenctle, Mr. — looked upon tjie witktdncfs of men withaut bitternefs, as being the
c/Tc^ of an eternal ncccfTary chain, 195. N. Reflexions upon this, 'ibid.
Q^q q 2 Fir-
I;, N-- D- E- X.
FoKgivcrufs ^ i/;/f//-/<w— recommended by fame of the philofophers,. biu conti-adnflexJ
by others, I40.-*— and by many ot our modern Dci/ls, 14 i. Tlie cxcclkiuy of the
.".Cofncl dp<5trii)e oa this liead, 143. 202. 27.0. ^-
Farnicaticn — not accountad a liii among the Pagans in the men, though they aoknow-
l«Iged a t^upitude in women's proftituting themfclves, 152, 153. The philofophers.
pi-A<5tired and pleaded foi it, 154, It ii exprclly prohibited. in the Gofpel ; and tha.
prohibiwon enloi ted by the mofl powerful fcrgumeats and motives,. 154. ...
Fruit, forbidden — the injunclioa concerning it viituAlly contained a conliderable part
. of the moral law, 22.
Calen — profeffed himfelf to be quite ignorant of the nature of the htiaun foul, but
_fufpe£ied it to be corporeal, 318. ^ .,
Cajftndus — carries his apology for Epicurnsifo far as to praife him for his diCnterefled
. piety, 100. N.— gives it as the general opinion of the antients, that human fouls
are parts of the divine e/Tence, and that at death tlicy lofe their individuality, and
.. fire rtfulved into the fubltance of the univerfal foul, 342. N.
GeatiUi — In uliat fenfe it is to be undeiifood that they had the law writteif in tli^ir
-hearts, 30, 31. N. The pious among them acknowledged by the Je>vs to have a.
. p^jirtion in the world tocoir.e, 26. St^z Heathens. . ; , . ,, . , ,. .
G'loMfjfjtcr, Bijlip qf—CiWiVi, that die laws of civil lociety alone confidercdi arc JDfuf-
. ficientrio fecure the caufe of virtue, or to prevent or cure moral diforders, 42,, 43.
Jlis obfeivatioii on a paHage of Terence concerning the cuAom of expofing chil-
dren, 67. He obferves, that the great utility of the doclrine of future rewards
and punifliments is no fmall argumait of its truth, 309 — expofes the fophiftry and
i'alfe reiifoning of Plutarch in his traft of Supevftition, 414.
f76£), -the knowledge of— is the great foundation of morality, 32. Noble Idea of-
CJod given in the Holy Scriptures, and of the duty we owe him, 258, 259, et feq.
C^I^— The noblcft afls of piety prefcribed by the pliilofophers, were direfted to be
• rendered not to one God only, but to the gods, 134. 162. It was an univerfal
• .^axira among the philofophers that the gods are never angry, nor hurt any one,
^4I 5. This was carried by many of them fo far. as to exclude all di\'inc puniflimeiitS'.
for fin, ibid. <;t 416— ytt others of them acknowledged, that the godj have S' dff-
nleiifure againll fin, .and chaftife or punifh men.oa the account of it, /jio-^tfidr
■uncertainty and inconfiftency on this head, 422.
Gc>J}e/-Di/pcfi/iitlon— opened with a full and free pardon, to penitefit returning firt-
ntrs, of all their pafl iniquities ; and at th< fame time laid them under the ffrongeft
(obligations, and gave them the beft direiflions and afliftances for a holy and vir-
tuous pra(aice, 256. It contains the ckarcfl difcovcries, and makes the mofl gTo'- '
ri(jus promifes of eternal life, 445, et feq. The light of the Carpel h the grtfttcft
cf all our privi!fws, and calls fur our highcft thankfulucfs, 474-
INDEX.
e^pd S(heme tf morality. Sec McraJity.
Grecians, anticnt — accounted among the moft knowing and clviliKd nations of an-
g_ tjquity, 4 5 — had cxctUent inilitutioas, jet many of their laws and cuftoms wac
contrary to good morals, 46, ct feq.
Grotius—-ot opinion that the law was communicated to Adam the firft father of man-
kind by divine revelation, and from him tranlmittcd to the human race, 23 —
mentions fome inAituiicHJS and cuftoms common to all men, which he afcribcs to a-
perpetual and almoft uninterrupted tradition from the hill ages, 27.
C/mmfophiJ}s — ^a fcft of Indian philofophers mightily admired among the antients for
their wifdom and virtue, 219. They made a wrong ufc of a noble principle, the
immortality of the foul, by voluntarily putting an end to their own lives, ibid, lo-
fbncesof the fame kind among other nations, 220. N.
H.
Bappiiiefs — Men are generally very apt to form wrong judgments of what is conducive
to true happinefs, 15. The philofophers propofcd to lead men to perfeft happi-
Bcfs in this prcfenc life, 230. 232, 234. l^hey held, that a man may be completdf
happy under the greateft torments merely by the force of his own virtue, without
regard to a future recompcnce, 233. The generality of people among the Paganr
bad very mean notions of the happinefs of good men in a future ftate, 425' A"^^-
HentkiKs — God did a great deal in the courfe of his Providence to preferve a fcnfc
of morals among them, if they had been duly careful to make a right ufe of the
advantages afforded them, 30, 3 r . When they fell from a right knowledge of
God, they fell alfo in important inflanccs, from a jud knowledge of moral duty,
32. They had fome general notions of God and a Providence, and of the moral
differencej of things, which fnrnirtied encouragements to viitue, and tended to
reflraiu vice and wickednefs, 38. That parr of the moral law which relates ttv
civil -and fecial virtue was in a confiderable degree prefcrved among them, as far
is was ncccllhry to the peace and order offociety, 37, et 139. But they were-
greatly deficient in that part of it which relates to the duty \vc more immftdiately
awe to God, and in that which relates to the rcftrainiog and governing tlie ftc fldy
concupifcencc, 37, 61134, 135, »43, ct feq. They were univerfaily abandoned
to unclennncfs and impurity, 155 — and were funk into an amazing corruption,
both in their iiotioQS and praf^ice, with regard to morals, at the time of our Sa-
viour's coming, 253, 254. No fufficicnt remedy was to be expeflad from t!itir
religion, their civil law<, or the inftru(ftions of their philnrophcrs, ibid. Tli?re
was need of .an extraordinary revelation to give them a complete rule ol mora! duty,
enforced by a divim, authority, and the moA important motives ; and the Chriftian-
rcycktioQ was admijably fitted for tliat purpofe, 257, ct feq. A divine revelraVoa
wa» aUo needful to give th«m a dear di/lovcry and full afTiiraricc of •• finwc fla!b.
ii^JinimrUiIity .
^, . . , I N D E :c
HmicUlus the phibrophcr — adniiicd by the Stoics, iSo. Hlo valn-gloiioiu IwatJ-..
1iig of himfeU, ibid. j
ffcmcr — teaches pnniflimcnts for the vieked in a future (late, 403. 406. He rcprc
fents good mca and heroes thcinfclvcs as difconfotatc in a future ftate, lamenting
their condition, and preferring tlie nicanti\ condition on earth to the moft eminent
flation in Hades, 426.
Hcheflwn, to x.twv — regarded by many of the antients as the true criterion of virtue*
■ 246. The philofophers were not agieed in their notions concerning it, 247. ct
348, 349-
Mumble and HumUity — The Stoical refignatiou different from that humble Aibmif-
fion to God wh'ch Chriftianity requires, 177, 178. N. Hiimiliiy was generally
tindcrftood in an ill fenfe among the Pagans, efpecially the Stoics, 181 — taken in
the evangelical fcnfe as recommended by onr Saviour, it had properly no place in'
the Pagan fyftcms of piety and morality, 182.
I.
Idolatry — had a bad influence in corrptlng both the notions and practices of mankind
\vith regard to morals, 32.
7^j,.j had holy and excellent laws given them to dircft them in the principal articles
.of moral duty, 33 — at the time of our Saviour's coming they had perverted the
moral law by their traditions, 257. The belief of the immortalitj' of the foul and
a future flate was very general among them when the Cofpel was publifhed, tliough
denied by the feft of the Saducees, 438. 444. They alfo generally believed the
refurrcflion of the body, but had very imperfect and grofs notions of it, ibid, et
449.
Jfrjicrance — All mens evil actions rcfolved by Epi<fletus and Marcus Antoninus wliolly
into their ignorance, and mlftaken judgments of things, 191, 192.
Immortality of the foul, and a future Jlatc, — The importance of that do(flruie fliewn^
296, 297. Natural and moral arguments in proof of it arc of great weight, 298,
ct feq. — but it is by divine Revelation that we have the fulleft affurance of it, 301.
Some notion and belief of it obtained among mankind from the moft antient time,
and fprcad generally among the nations, 303, et feq. This was not originally the
mere eilcft of human wifdom and reafoning, but was derived by a moll antient
tradition from the earlieft ages, and probably made a part of the primitive religion
communicated by divine revelation to the firft parents of the human race, 310, et
feq. The belief of it was countenanced and encouraged by the wifeft legiflators^
300, 310 — but was much weakened by thedifputcs of the philofophers ; many of
_ whom abfolutely denied it, 315, et feq. — and thofe of them that profeffed to be-
lieve it, often fpoke of it w th great doubt and imcertainty, or argued for it upcm
iflfufScieut grounds. Sec Phitofoplxn. In the days of Socrates it met with little
crevlit
I N D E X.
credit among the generality of the Greeks, 424— and Polybius complains, that In
his time it was rejeftcd both by tlic great men and many of the people ; and on this
he charges the great corruption of their manners, 427. The dilbelicf of it became
very common among ihcRojnans in the latter times of their Hate, who in this fell
ft-om the religion of their anccftors, 428, et feq. The world flood in great need
of an extraordinary Revelation from God at the time of our Saviour's appearance, lo
affurcmtn of the immortality of the foul, and a future flace, 443. Life and im-
moruJity is clearly and fully brought to light by the Cofptl, 445, et feq. TKe
happy eSiih of this do^rine where it is fincertly believed and embraced ; it tends
to comfort us under all the tribulation? of this prefent ftate ; to begtt in us a true
grcatnefs of foul, and aniniate us to a continual progrds in holinefsand virtue, 4581
459. See alfo-399, 400.
Imf'urity and Incontinence — contrary to the law cf nature, and of petnicious confc-
queoce to focicty, 51, 52. N. et 156 — univcrfal in the Gentile world, and particu-
larly among the philofophers, i 53, 1 54. To recover men from it one uoblc defign
of tlie Gofpel, 155. 276. Many of our modern Deifls feem to encourage this U-
ccntioufnefs, inftead of corre(fting it, 157, 158.
lufiiiry, critical — into the opinions and praflice of tlie antient philofophers, concern-
ing the nature of the foul, and a future Hate a learned anj judicious treatife
321 — referred 10, 323. 341. 343. 388.
Juii'es Letties, the author of — dcclaies, that the greatcA adverfaries of Chrirtlanity
miil\ own, that ilic moigjl precepts of the firft preachers of the Gofpel were in-
^ttely fuptrior to thole of the wifeA philofophers of antiquity, 203.
>■>= L,
Jjlfetifpnonlans— were for facrificing probity, juf^icc, and evciy other confiJeration lo
what they thought the good of the Hate required, 48. Many of tlvtir lawr. and
c^iAoms contrary to humanhy, ibid. Tlieircrnel'v to tlieir Haves, 49,50. Otheis
jof their laws inconfirtent with modcfty and decency, 51. Tlicy weir a people ad-
' mlccd by a!! antiquity for their v.ifdom and virtue, and yet ii» fcveral rcfpe^s c.f
a bad charafler, J2.
Laclantiui — obfetvcs, tlut thofe among the P*gim» who iiiftritifted ihcm in the wor-
fliip of the gods, gave no rules for the condufl of liie, and regulating mcn'i man-
ners, 39, 40. N.
Lanu—Thc Heathens generally agreed in deriving tlie original of law from Go J, ^8.
121.
La-.v, mifitl — not naturally and nccefTaiily known to all men in its julT extent, \rlt):-
l-iQul inftru^ioo, 5, 6. The knowledge of it communiiiated 10 manl.ind in various
"^rays, 7, et feq. viz. by the moral r^i.fe, 7, 8 — by a principle of rcafon jndginp
froin the nature and relations of things, 10, 11 — by cdiicntion and human in.'Vuc-
^D^, l6, 17 — and by Divjne Rcvclatioo, 19. It wa: for fuWhncc knowiv in the
patriarih.l
IN D E X.
. {satiiarchal times, 27— exprcfly promulgated with great folcmnitj-under flie MoHai-
cal dlffjcnfation, 37, 33 — prefcribed and Jafotced ia its higheft pcrfcflion by the
Gofpel, 257, et feq,
la-US — There were hiv/s given to mankind before the flood, the tranfgreflHon cf which
brought that awful judgment upon them, 25.
"taws of civil focicfy — imperfeft mcafu res of moral duty, 42. See Civit.
J^an'S of the twelve tabUs — preferred, by Cicero to all the laws of Greece, atid to all
the writings of the plulofophers, -64, 65. Some of thofe laws extremely fevere,
particularly an inhuman one concerning debtors, 65, 66 — another for the expofing
and dertroying deformed children, ibid.
L^ivs uii'diritten — common to ail mankind. Sec Socrates.
J.c.inied Sect among the Chinejc — confine the rewards of good and pnnifhments of
bad men to this prefentlifc, and fuppofe tliem to be the neceflary phyfical effcih of
\irtue and vice, 330 — they univerfuUy rcjeft the rewards -and punirtiments of a fu-
ture ftate, 331, 332 — the bad effefts of this npon their own conduft, ibid. N.
Lerl/!a tors —'The raofl antlent pretended to have received their law3 from God, that
they might have the greater authority with the people, 90.
"Locke, Mr,- — An excellent pafTage from him to (hew, that a complete ririe of duty
" could not be had among the Heathen philofophcrs, 88. He obierves, that human
rcafon failed in its great and proper bnfinefs of morality, and never from unqueftion-
able principles made out an intire body of the law of nature, 251 — .and that it
fliould feem by that little that has been hitherto done' in it, to be too hard a tafk
for unafTifted reafcn tocflabliili morality in all its parts witli a clear and convincing
light, 252.
Love, impure, of hoys — very common in Greece, 54, et fcq. — in fome places pre-
fcribed by their laws, 56 — avowed and praftiled by the moft eminent perfo/is
among them, 60 — it prevailed much at Rome, 69 — and in Chin.a, 71. Many of
the philufophers greatly addi<fled to it, 145, et feq.
Lycurgus — pronounced by the oracle to have been rather a god than a man, 46.
His laws highly celebrated both by antients and moderns, yet Htted rather to render
men valiant than jufl, 47. Several of his inftitutions contrary to the rules of u
found morality, 48, et feq. See Laccdamoniiuis.
M.
Mil — a moral agent, and defigned to be governed by a law, 3, 4— nor kft at lits
firft creation merely to fix a ride of moral duty to himfclf, 2 1 . God made ■early
difcoveries of his will to him concerning Iiis duty, 21, et feq.
Meng-Zu — efteemed the I'econd great Chinefe phllofopher after Confucins, 330 —
. nc\-er makes the leaft meation la liis writings of the immortality of the foul, and a
future Ilate, ibid.
3 Mixtures,
INDEX.
Mixtures, incefluous, and vimciural luJIs — common among many of the Headicn
nations, 130. N. — reckoned by many of theii- antient wife men among things
indifferent, 144. 208. 248.
Mintf/quifsi, Monf.dc — commends the laws of Lycurgus, 47. A good obfervation of
hii to (hew, that incontinence is contrary to the law of nature, and ouglit to he
reftraincd by the niagiftrate, 51, 52. N. ct 156 — gives a difadvantageouscharaifler
of the Chinefe, 74 — is a great admirer of the Stoics, 159, 160 — declared with his
dying breath, that the Gofpel morality was the moft excellent prefent which could
pofllbly have been made to man from his Creator, 293 . He obferves, that the bdiel
of futtire rewards wkhout future puniftiments would be a great prejudice to fociety,
402. Hi attributes the wrong notions which have obtained among fome nations,
as if the future ftate was to be in all refpe(fls like the prefent, to a corruption and
abnfe of the do<fh-inc of the refurre(ftion of the body, 440. His judicious obfer-
T.ition, that it is not lufficicnt that a religion fliouid teach the do^rine of a future
ftite, but that it Ihould alfo direft to a proper ufe of it ; and that this is admirably
done by the Chriftian religion, 441 — and that the rcfurreflion tJierc taught IcaJs
to fpiritual ideas, ibid. He (hews, that the ChriAian religion, confidered in a
|>j!iiical view, is of great adv.intagc to civil government, 471, 472.
Moral Lavi. Sec Law.
Moral Jen f: — implaotcd in the human heart, 7 — not equally flrong in all men, S —
weai: and depraved in the prefent ftate of mankind, 8, 9 — not defigr.cd to be
alone an ad.^J^latc guide in morals, or to preclude the neceflity of inlbuftion, lo.
247. 248.
]\Jora'tit\ — taken in its juA txteot, comprehends the duties we more immrdiatcly owe
to God, as well as thofc that refpefl our ncighboois and ouiiclvcs,' 36, 37.
Mwatity, Pagan. See Heathen:.
Morality, Gofpel fcheme of—c^icetds what had ever been publilhcd to the world be-
fore, 15T. A fummary rcprefentation of the ChriAian morality, with rcfpcft to
the duties required of us towards God, our neighbours, and ourfclvcs, 258, et
fcq. It is in nothing deficient, but complete in all its parts, 283 — laifcd to au
high degree of pnrity, yet does not carry it to an unnatuial or luperftitious cx-
ticmc, i'jiJ. This is AicAn in feveral inAances, 283, 284. See alfo 189. 202.
220. 341, 242. It is enforced by the moft powerful motives, far fupciTnr to arty
that were urged by the moA celebrated antient moraliAs, iy>^, ct fcq. It is lo
'-, that all attempts in after-ages to add to its perfcf>1on, have fallen flioi t
i^^nal excellency, and only tended to weaken and corrupt it, 2<jo.
Id-.jcj, L-M 5/" — was defigncd to inAru^ men in morals, as well as to lead thera t6 the
rjglu knowledge and worAiip x;f th^' 00c tiue Cod, 32, 33. The lame of it fp^v-.uf
to other nations, and was piobahly in fcvci^ji rtfpcvls of ufe to tliem, 3 \.
lilyjleries, antient Pu£dn — ^became at length greatly coiiuptcd, and coiif>,!'> , .,
the gaicral depravation of maiii^ers in the Pagan v.oi Id, 78, - 1 liuie
Vol. II. R r r t^r;^
I N D E X.
itTcci in pi-eferving the fcnfe of a future ftate, and efpecially of future puniflitnents
among the Greeks and Romans, 425. 431.
N.
Navareite — His account of China feems to be an impartial one, 71 — referred to, ibid.
et 72. 323. 388, 389.
Noah — had the divine law made known to him, which was from him tranfmitted to
his defcendants, 25.
Noah, fins of — Jewifti tradition concerning the precepts given to them, 28.
o.
Oaths. See fwearing.
Oracles — The philofophers direiflred the people to cohfult and obey the oracles of the
gods in all matters relating to religion and divine worfhip, 125. This was Socra-
tes's own praftice, and his advice to others, ibid. Plato afcribes the greateft and'
moft excellent laws to the oracle of Apollo nt Delphi, ibid.
Parents — ^Acuflom among fome of the Heathen nations to expofe or deftroy their fick
and aged parents, 74. 1 30.
Peripatetics — They held as v/ell as the Stoics, that a wife and good man is happy
imdtr the fevereft torments, but would not allow that he is happy in the higheft
degree, 232. The difference between them and the Stoics about thcabfolute in-
differency of all external things confidercd, 237, 238.. Some of them denied the
immortality of the foul, and its fubfiftence in a feparate Hate, 316. They are
blamed by Cicero for fuppofing that fome things may be profitable which are not
honcfl, 393.
Philofiphy — High encomiums bcftowed upon it by many of the antlents, as of the
greateft ufe with regard to morals, 81 — and as the only infallible way to make
men completely happy, 233, 234.
P.bikfophcrs , Pagan — Some of them faid excellent things concerning mor;il virtue, and
their inftru(flions were probably in fevtral inftances of confidcrable ufe, 82. The
pretence, that there is no moral precept in the Gofpcl, but what the philofophers
had titught before, examined, 83, ct fcq. No proof can be given that they de-
rived all they taught merely from their own reafon, \vithout any help from antient
tiadition, or the light of Divine Revelation, 85. They were univcrfally wrong in
encouraging polythtifm, nor did any of them prefcrihe the worfliip of the one true
God, and of himonly, 86, 87. A complete fyftem of morality not to be found in
the writings of any one philofopher, 87 — nor in them all colicflivcly confideredf 88.
Xhcir featiments, for want of a proper divine authority, could not pafs for laws
obligatory
INDEX.
obligator}' to mankind, 89, 90. Many of the philofophers werewraig in thtfun>l 1
mental ptLnciples of morals, 93. Some of them denied that any thiiig is jiift <ir
•tinjuft by nature, but only by human law and cuftora, 93, 94, 95 — othcis raad*-
■man's chief good confift ia fcnfual pleafurc, 96, ct fcq. The fentiments of thoie
who are accounted the beA of the Pagan philofoplieis and moralilU confidercd,
It (J, ct feq. They held, that law is right reafon ; but ihoy generally derived the
original of law, and its obliging force, from Cod, or the gods, 121, 122, They,
fent tlie people to the oracles to know the law of God, efpeci»lly with refpift to
divine worlhip, 1 25 — and gave it as a general rule, confirmed by tlie oradts, that
all men fhould conform to the laws and religion of their country, 126. J5ut the
way they fecm chiefly to propofe for men's coming at the kno^^ ledge of the divine
law is, by the dcxflrints and itiftruf\ions of wife men, i. e. of the philofophers, 1 26,
127. They fpoke nobly of virtue iu general, but when they came to particulars
diffeied in their notions of what is virtue and vice, and what is agreeable to the
law of natTjre and reafon, or contrary to it, 127, 128. Some of the moft eminent
of them paffcd wrong judgments in relation to ftfVeral important points of the law
of nature, 131. They often erred in applying general rules to particular cales,
133. They were for the moft p*rt deficient and wrong with rclp^et to the duty
and worlhip proper to be rendered to God, which yet they acknowledged to be of
the highcfl importance, 134. They all encoinaged the wonhip of a raultiplitky
of dcitic-s, 135. Swearing by the creatures was not foibidden by llKm, 136.,
They gave good precepts and dirctftions about civil and focial duticjj 139. Soaie
of them faid excellent thiags concerning the forgiveuefs of injuriet;, biu were coii-
tradifted by others of gre;\t name, 140, 141. They were generally wroug in. that
part of morals which relates to purity and continence, aud the government of, the
fenfual paflioiu;, 143, et feq. Many of them chargeable with unnatural luib and
' vices, which they reckoned among things of an indiifeient nature, 144, et ,fcq.
The)' generally allowed of fornication, as having nothing in it finful, or contrary
to reafon, 151. 154. Many of them pleaded for fuicide as lawful and proper in
fomc cafes, 211. 225. N. They made high pretcnfions of leading men to perfcd
happincfs in this prefent ftate, abflra(fting from all regard to a future reward, 233.
244- Noiwiiliftandfag they faid fuch glorious things of virtue, they did not clcajly
- icxplain what they underffood by it, 244. They were generally loofe in their doc-
trine with regard to the obligation of truth, aud thought lying lawful when it was
' fvofiiable, 248, 249.
Phikfophcrs—xhs gr«-at corrupters of the anvicnt tradition concerning the immortality
of the fuul and a future llatc, 315. Theie weic wlwle fefts of them that pro-
felledly denied it, ibid. They \vuof«t up a£ advocates for it placed it for ilie ninfl
part on wrong foundations, 361. It was a general notion among them, lli.it the
%tunan foul is a portion of the divine cilcnce, 361, et ftq, 1 hey uui.u,..!. l: t
the praeiexiftenceof the foul, anil from theiicc aigueti it^. itMitxut»Ji> .
li 1 r -^
INDEX.
Piiffendorf — of opinion, that men ufually come to tlie knowledge of natural law bj'
education and cuftom, \j — and that the chief heads of that law were originally
commiuiicated to Adam by divine Revelationj and from him transmitted to hit;
defceadants, 23. N. He proves, that a v.iguc and licentious commerce between the
fexes out of marriage is contrary to the law of nature, 1 55.
Punlfhmcnti — Tile Stoics feem to have denied that any proper punlftinients are ia-
filcfed upon men by the gods, either here or hereafter, 165. 416, 417.
Punifiments, future — The docVrine of future rewards necenkrily connotes future
■punifhrnents, 402 — the belief of the former without the latter would be of per-
aiicious confequence, ibid. The wifeft of the Heathen legiilators and philofophers
fcnfible of the great importance and necellity of the doftrine of future punifhments,
403, et feq. Celfus reprefents it as a doctrine taught by Heathens as well as Chri-
llians, that wicked men /hall be fiibjeft to eternal punifliments, 407 — yet it ap-
pears that the moll celebrated philofophers really rejeiTled that doftriae of future
p'jRifhments, the belief of which thc7 owned to be necelliiry to fociety, 408, et
ftq. The philofophic maxim tiiat the gods are never angry, nor hurt any person,
was generally fo underflood as to exclude the punifliments of a future liate, 415.
422. The notion of future punilhments feems to have been generally difcarjed
among the Greeks in the time of Polybius, 427. It was believed among the Ro-
. mons in the molt antient times of their ftatc, but was afterwards rejcifted and dif-
regarded even by the vulgar, 428, et feq. The Chrlftian doftrii\c>®f a future
ftate includes not only the rewards that fliall be conferred upon the righteous, but
the punifliments which fliall be inflicted on the wicked in the world to come, 459.
The ufefulnefs and importance of this part of the Gofpel Revelation flicwn, anj
that this doftrine as there taught is both reafonable and necelfary, 461, et feq.
Pythagoms — held, that the human foul is a part of the divine fubllance, and that
therefore it is immortal, 335 — and that after its departure from the body it is re-
folved into the univerfal foul, ibid. — yet he maintained the doiflrine of .the tranf-
niigrauon of fouls, which he learned of the Egyptians, 336. He fuppofed it to be
phyfical and necefHiry, but endeavoured to apply it to moral purpofc-s, 337.. Ac-
cording to Ovid he rejedled future punifliments, 339. He e.s.ceptcd fome eminent
Ibuls from a neccflity of tranfraigration, and fuppofed them to go immediately to
the gods, 340. It is hard to form a right notion of his fcheme, \vhich fecras not
to have been well confident with itfelf, ibid. The doftrine of the immortality of
the foul, as he taught it, of little advantage to mankind, 343. He held periodical
revolutions of the world, and that the fiime courfe of things ihall return, and
all things that have been done fliall be done over again, 343. See alfo 336. Vl£
cannot be fure of his real icatinicnts, as he made no fcruple to impofe upon his
• jiearers, 344.
R. Redfon—
r N D E X.
R.
Rfd/on — arguiag from the nature and relatione. of things, may be ot\,;-... .... , j lead
men to the knowlcJge of moral duty, and to (hew that it has a real foundatioa
ill nature, lo, i i — but this is not the ordinary way in which the bulk of m in-
kind come ro the knowledge of morals, 1 2. Rcafon h apt to be influenced by the
p.ilTions to fortn Miong judgments in things of a mora! nature, i:;, et feq. Reafon
alone has not propeily the force of a hiw to mankind, without the interpofition and
authority of a fuptrior, 1 20. If left merely to itfelf in the prefent Ihte of mankind, it
is not a fale and certain guide in matters of religion and morality, 466 — yet it is a va-
luable gift of God, and in many relperts of great advantajje, efpecialiy when allifted
l)y Divine Rcvelatiun, 467. Men's having too high an opinion of the powers ot
their own reafon, has often had a bad efFeft both in religion and philofophy, ibid. N.
Religion — when it is of the right kind, and confidered in its moft comprehcnfive no-
tion, takes in the whole of moral duty, and enforces it by a divine authority, and
The moft important motives, 38.
A-Z/jj/wj, Heathen — as '•ftablifhed by the Laws, had no proper articles of faith necef-
lary to be believed, nor propofed any fettled rule ot moral duty for direifting and
regulating the practice, 38, 39. It confifted properly in the public rites and ce-
reroonjes which were to be obferved in the worthip of the gods, ibid. The rites
of their worfliip had in fcveral refpefts a bad influence on the morals of the
people, 40.
Refurrenion of the body — denied and ridiculed by the philofophers of Greece and
Rome, 437. Some notion of it faid to have obtained among the Eallern Magi,
438. It might have been part of the original tradition derived from the beginning
tt)gelhcr with the immortality of the foul, ibid. It obtaiued among the Jews long
before the rime of our Saviour, but iheir notions of it obfcure and grofs, 438, 430.
The tenet of the tranfmigration of fouls might have arifcn from a corruption of the
do<fhineof the refurrenion of the body ; as aUo the notion, which obtained among
many nations, that after their death they would have the fame bodily wants and
be in the fame condition which they are in at prefent, 439', 440. Ihe notion of
the refuneftion taught by oor Saviour and his apollles noble and lublimc, and leads
to fpiritual ideas, 441. 449.
Ifcvelation, divine — one way of communicating to men the knowledge of morals, 19.
The great ul'efulncfs of the Chriftian revelation for that purpofe, 34, 35. 256. et
feq. See Morality.
Pntnion — or re-fnfion of the foul at death, or fooa after it, into the univerfrd foul,
tanpht by the Stoics and other pliilofophcrs, 321. 329. 341, 342 — not tu be un-
der ftood of a moral but a phyfical union, 321. It is quite different from tlic
Chriftwn do^rinc of the beatific viflon and enjoyment of God, 341, 342. It w.is
fuppofcd to be cotnmoD tu all fouls without dil\iai.'tliHi, not peculiar to the innu-
2 cent
INDEX.
cent and lighteous, ibid. If there was any happincfs provided for departed fouk,
it was fuppofed to be previous to the reunion in which fouls loft their individual
fubfilknce, ibid.
Romans, antient — their charaifter, 31. 6^, 64. The cuftom of expofing children
continued long among tliem, 67 — their cruel treatment of their flaves, 67, 68 —
their gladiatory (hews contraiy to humanity, and deftroyed more men than the
wars, 63 — unnatural lulls vei7 common among them, efpecially in the latter times
of their flatc, 69.
s.
Sacrifices — a part of the primitive religion, originally of divine appointment, 24.
Siigcs, Eajlcrn. See Eaficrn.
Sceptics — denied, that any thing is in its own nature honeft or di(honeft, bafc or ho-
nourable, but only by virtue of the laws and cuftoms which have obtained among
men, 93.
Seneca — fays, it is a narrow notion of innocency to meafure a man's goodnefs only by
the laws, 42 — afTcrts, that no man in hrs found reafon fears the goJs, 167 — and
that it is neither in their power nor inclination to hurt any one, ibid. Extravagant
ftrains of Stoical pride and arrogance in his writings, 171, 172— raifes a wife man
to au equality with God in virtue and happinefs, ibid. — fceras to make prayer un-
neceffary, yet at other times advifes to it, 173, 174 — juftifies Cato's drunkennefs,
211 — pleads for felf-murder, 213 — uncertain in his notions about the immortality
of the foul, and a future Aate, 324. He fometimes fpcaks nobly of future happi-
nefs, ibid — at other times expreffes himfelf doubtfully about it, ibid, — and fome-
times pofitively affirms, that the foul is void of all fenfc after death, and that a man
is then in the lame condition he was in before he was born, 325, 326. He abfo-
lutely rejefts future punilhments as vain terrors invented by the poets, and a/Terts
that a dead man is affefted with no evils, ibid, et 412, 413.
Shaftefbuiy, Earl of- — A paffage of his relating to the dearnefs of the morsl fenfe ex-
amined, 8, 9,
Sin — accord'ng to the principles laid down by Marcus Antoninus, necefllir}' and una-
voidable, 194, 195. — can do no hurt, eitiicr to particular perfons, or to the whole,
ip8 — contributes in the Stoical fcheme to the harmony of the univerfc, ibid.
i'ocratcs — the fii-ft amonj^ the Greeks that made morals the proper and only fubjcfl
of his philofophy, and brought it into common life, 92, 93 — was wont to con-
fid t the Oracles, to knoAr the will of the gods, 125 — takes notice of fomc un-
written laws which he fuppofes to be of divine originail, and common to all man-
kind, 128, ct feq. — rcprefents the worrtiipping, not one God only, but the gods,
as the firll and moll univerfal law of nature, 120. It was a cullom with him to
fv,'car, but efpecially to fv.ear by the cr^-atures, 137. He is charged with incon-
tinence, and making \.i{c of proIUtutts, 152. He taught the immortality of the
foul.
INDEX.
foul, afid a future A;ue, 344, ct feq. He fometimes gives a noble account of fu-
ture happincfs, but fceras to confine it principally to thofe wlio hid made a great
progrefs in wifdom and pliiiofophy, 346 — mixes his doiTlripeof a future ftatc with
that of the tranfmigration of fouls, ibid. — ^vcs a mean idea of the happincfs re-
ferved for the common fort of good and virtuous men after death, 347. Cicero's
fummary of Socratcs's doiflrine concerning a future ftate, 348. None of his dif-
ciples, but Plato and his followers, taught the immortality of the foul as the doc-
trine of their School, 355. Mod of the arguments produced by him in the Pha:do
for the immortality of the foul, weak and inconclufive, 372. He exprcflcs his
hope of it in his Lift difcourfc when he was going to die, but docs not pretend to 1
certainty, 381, 382. He reprefents the belief of it as of great importance to the
caufe of virtue, 397, 398 — but fays, it was dilbelieveJ by moft of the people among
the Athenians and Greeks in his time, 424.
Soul efmdn — Strange diverfity of opinions among the philofophers about the nature
of the human foul, 317. The moft eminent of them from the time of Pythagoras,
maintained that it is a portion of the divine cflcncc, 362. N.
Sparta, and Spartans. See LacetLtnionians .
Stoics — the moft eminent teachers of morals in the Pagan world, 1 59 — highly ad-
mired and extolled both by autients and moderns, ibid, et 160. Obfcrvations oiv
their maxims and precepts with regard to piety towards God, 162, et feq. One
great defcft in all their precepts of piety Is, that they generally run in the poly-
thciftic ftrain, and are referred promifcuoufly to God and the gods, 162, 163.
Their fcheme tended to take away the fear of God as a punllher of fin, 1 63, ct feq-
— and advanced fuch a notion ot the divine goodnefs as is fcarce confiftent with
punitive juftice, 1 65. They propofed to raifc men to a ftate of felf-fufficiency and
independency, 168, 169. Extravagant ftrains of pride and arrogjnce in fomc of
the principal Stoics, 170, 171. ConfelFion of fin before God, and forrow for it,
made no part of their religion, 175, 176. The rcfignation to God, for which
they are fo much admired, was in feveral refpe(fts different from that meek fub-
mifiion to the divine will which Chriftianity requires, 177, 178. N. Evangelical
humility had not properly a place in their fyftem of morals, 182. They gave
many good precepts concerning benevolence and fecial duties, but their do<fliine of
apathy was not well confiftent with a humane difpofition, and a charitable fym-
pathy, 183, ct feq. They faid excellent things concerning forgivenefs of inju-
ries, and bearing with other men's faults, but in fome inftanccs carried it to an ex-
treme, and placed it on wrong foundations, 190, et feq. Their pretence that no
injury can be done to a good man, le;ives no proper room for his forgiving injuries,
196, 197. Somcof the Stoics taught that pardoning mercy was inconfiftcnt with
the charaftcr of a wife man, 203, 204. They talked in high ftrains of governir-f,
the flertily appetites, and yet the he.ids and leaders of th.it feft were very loofe, borh
in their do<^rinc and pra^icc with refpct^ to purity and chaftity, and gave great
Vol. II. S f i" indulgence
Indulgence to the f^-nfual paflions, 207, et feq, ' Sec alCo 154. They were fa-
voin-;ible to drunkenncfs, 210, 2U — aHox\-ed and even in fevenil cafes prefcribcd
felfmurder, 212, ct feq. They propofed to lead men to peifeft happinefs in this
. prefent life, without regard to a future {\ate ; and to this end alFerted the abfolute
. felf-fuffidency of virtue, and the indifferency of all external things, 229, et feq. It
was a principle with them that a wife man is happy in the higheft degree, merely
by the force of his own virtue, under the fcvereft torments, 231, 232. Their
I fcheme in feveral refpefts not confident with itfelf : and- they were obliged to make
. concefTions which cannot be well reconciled to their principles, 236, 237. Their
r philofophy in its rigour not reducible to prafl ice, and had little influence either on
the people or on therafeli'cs, 242, 243. They did not give a clear idea of the na-
; ture of that virtue of which they faid fuch glorious things, 244, et feq. They
taught that lying in words is lawful and allowable on many occafions, 248. The
• immortality of the foul was not a doftrine of their fchool, 319. Some of them held,
that the foul is abforbed at death into the foul of the world, and then lofes its indi-
vidual fubfirtence, 320 — ^^otlicrsfuppofed it to fubfiA for fome time after death, but
that it fliall be dillblvcd and refumed into the foul of the univerfe at the confla-
gration, 322. Their doctrine of fucceffive periodical diflblutions and conflagrations
■ of the world, and the reftitutlon of all things precifely to the ftate they were in be-
fore, not well confiftent with a flate of future retributions, 323. They held, th.u
fomc great and eminent fouls after death became gods, but that even thefe were to
bedilTolvedat the conflagration, 322. It was a maxim with them, that duration is
• of no importance to happinefs, and that a temporal felicity is as good as an eternal
one 395, 396. They maintained, that nothing is profitable but what is hoBcH:;
which is true, if a future recompence betaken into the account, but does not always
■; hold if confined only to this prefent life, 393, 394.
Suicide recommended by many of the philofophers, and cfpecially by the Stoics,
:2i I, et feq. — cenfured by fome philofophers, and condemned in fome countries "by
•the laws of the ftate, 221, 222. The Roman Ktws gave too great allowances to
iit, 222. Some of our modern Deifls plead for it, 225. The abfurdity and per-
■nicious confequence5 of it flicwn, 226, 227.
Swearing — common among many of the philofophers, 136, 137. None of the m for-
bid fwearing by the creatures, ibid.
Sjkes, Dr. — lays it down as a principle, that the right knowledge of the one true
God is the great foundation of morality, 32 — affcrts. that the light of natural rca-
fon, merely by its own force, difcovered to the Heathens the whole of moral
duty, without any alTiftance from Divine Revelation, S3, 84 — fa;s, that it was
the philofophic notion among the Creeks from the Time of Pythifirnras, that the
human foul is a portion or fec^ion of the divine fubAance, 36^. N.
r N . D E X,
T.
5^j/f/, I(iwi oft fie t'j^elve. See I,i-.y;,
7^<-j/ArtJ/?«x— held, that the fuffcripg great outward evils nnd calamities is in>.om-
pat^blg with a happy life, 233 — fgr which he was blamed by the other philo-
fophers, "ibid.
Timaus Locrus — held the tranfmigration of fouls ; and that it is neccflary to inflil into
the people the dread of future punift^ments ; yet feeras not to have believed thetn
himfclf, 338.
Traditkn — There were fcveral cufloms derived by a moft antlent tradition from the
firft ages, and common to all naiions, and which probably had their original from
a divine appointment, 27. N.
Tranfmigratkn af fouls — taught by the Egyptians, who reprefcntcd it as the cffe^^
of a phyfical necellity, yet applied it to moral purpofcs, 337. It was maintained
by all the philofophers v/ho taught the immortalit)- of the foul, 373. It was a
great corruption of the dcxflrine of a future ftate of retributions, and tended to
weaken and defeat the good efFefls of it, 27 A-
Truth — Many of the philofophers looked upon truth to be no farther obligatory than
as it ii profitable ; and lying to be lawful when it is fo, 248, 249. Some of our
modern Dcirts of the fame fcntimcnts, 25a.
V.
Virtue — The dotfbrine of the abfolute felf-fufficiency of virtue fo happincfs, even
under the fevereft torments, examined, 234, 235. The philofophers generally
fuppofed virtue to confifl in living according to nature, but did not clearly explain
what is to be underftood by it, 244, et feq. Many of them reprefented it lo be
equivalent to the to hJoJiv, or honeflum, but were far from being agreed as to what
atftions tome under that character, 247, 248.
Virtue, divine — of the PlatoniAs, confidered, 135, 136. N.
Voltaire, Muif. t/t-— fays, that nature, attentive to our defire, leads us to God by the
voice of pleafures, 97. Purity and chaflity fcem not to enter into his fchcmc ot
the religion and law of nature, 157,
w.
lilvet, camntunity of. See Conununity. CuAom of lending their wives common at
Spaita, and prrfcjibcd by I.ycurgus, 32 — approved by Piutaich, ibid, et 151 —
and by the Stoics, ibid. — pU-jdcd for by Mr. Bayie, ibid.
Ji'orjlip — of one God, nnd of himonly, not taught by any of the philofophers, 86, 87.
The worfhip of ilic gods repicfcnred by Socrates as the firll law of nature, i i^.
0 Zena
I N D p X,
Z.
Zc-no — the father of the Stoics, extolled as a man of eminent virtue, and had great
honours decreed him on that account by the magiftratcs and people of Athens, yet
was chargeable witli greatvices, and unnatural impurities, 207. He held the com-
niuoity of women, 209 — and the indiffereacy of incefluous mixtures, 131— and
put an end to his own lifc^ 217.
N I S.
K
A-*.
1
'm-^
4^:
>^«
.:.^.^''
>»•».
"3
<«
V
f!Hv.»
«*<
VA
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11